RFees references - incorrect

In April last year, the Rules relating to Fees (RFees) Art.2 was updated – it now has a (1) paragraph for current fees and a (2) paragraph for fees that apply to applications filed before 1 April 2009.

The latest version is here:

http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legal-texts/html/epc/2010/e/articl2.html#2

or here:

http://archive.epo.org/epo/pubs/oj009/12_09/12_5879.pdf

Although I do not expect the examination committee to be to critical on this, it is incorrect in all our materials.

For current fees, if you want the completely correct reference, you should also give the paragraph number (1)

So for example, the fee for further processing was RFees 2.12, and it is now RFees 2(1).12

The fee index number (.1  .1a  .2  .3 etc) have not changed.

Sorry for this inconvenience.

Information on US and JP

The REE - Art.13(2)(b) says that you need:
a general knowledge of the national laws of: the USA and Japan to the extent that they are of importance in connection with proceedings before the EPO.

========
This is very vague. Japan has not featured on the exam very often, but the US is on very regularly (particularly on DII)

The EQE concentrates on EP and PCT.

But, you should know about the general possibilities in the US and JP that are different from in Europe.

For the US, for example, you may need to approximately calculate the relevant 12m for the grace period.

For the details, you can then state "I will consult a US colleague about the details"

I have posted one of our training documents on the EQE forum giving brief details for the US and JP. That should be enough information for the EQE

EQE2011: known errors in reference materials

Updates are available for the reference books.

18^th Edition Visser:

An update is available here:

http://www.htelpublisher.com/update/

Note that the text for R.36(1) in this update is incorrect. It should be:

(a) the divisional application is filed before the expiry of a time limit of twenty-four months from the Examining Division's first communication under Article 94, paragraph 3, and Rule 71, paragraph 1 and 2, or Rule 71, paragraph 3, in respect of the earliest application for which a communication has been issued, or

On page 164 (Art.79(2) OJ2010, 603 is wrong for the extension fees grace period. It should be OJ2009, 603

I have reported this to Derk already

Sept 2010 version of Hoekstra:

Updates are available here:

http://hoekstradoc.nl/en/errata/

Erratum for the the Question and Answer books:

http://www.deltapatents.com/en/books/paper_d/

Good luck.

Remember that under the new compensation rules, if you get 45 points or more on D, you can compensate it with A/B/C. You can compensate ether either at this sitting or at future sittings of A/B/C.