The "Information on the schedule for the EQE 2024 examination papers" (dated 27 July 2023) is now available on the EQE website. 

The EQE 2024 will take place online using the examination software Wiseflow, with substantially the same setup as the e-EQE/Online EQE of 2021, 2022 and 2023.

Paper C will again be split into two parts of 3 hours each. The first part is to be completed before the break, with the second part only becoming available after the break. It will not be possible to go back to the first part after the break. Paper C lasts six hours (9:30-12:30 + 13:15-16:15)

Candidates will be allowed to print everything except the claims of the patent in suit/opposed. The documents allowed for printing will be made available approximately ten minutes before the start of each part.

(Note that that the document may be subject to minor changes as testing continues. Please check the EQE website for updates)

Please feel invited to post your comments. You are allowed to post anonymously and do not need an account, but please give your name or a nickname for an easy and inter-human interaction.

Here's our attempt at this year's paper C. This year's paper concerned pedals for bicycles comprising sensors to help cyclist to optimize their pedaling. 

A good chunk of the paper was quite mechanical requiting candidates to argue about the components of chain drives, but on the other hand a quite complicated ranges puzzles was also presented. The first part was clearly more work than the second part. 

You can find our solution by clicking on "Read more" below.

We look forward to your comments!

Comments are welcome in any official EPO language, not just English. So, comments in German and French are also very welcome!

Please do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 15-03-2023 22:23"), whereas using your real name or a nickname is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation. You do not need to log in or make an account - it is OK to just put your (nick) name at the end of your post.

Joeri, Jelle, Nico, Sander

For the effective dates, the client explains that the priority document was filed by two applicants, but that A1 was filed by only one of them. There was no transfer of the priority right. That is not allowed, see the guidelines  A-III, 6.1, so the priority claim is invalid. This means that no claims get the priority right. 

For the list of evidence, we have three easy documents, A3, A4 and A7 were published before the filing date. A discussion of documents A2 and A5 would be needed. A2 has a publication date well after the A1 filing date, but we can use A2 as evidence of disclosures made during Eurobike 2017. Clearly the posters were disclosed, but judging by the comments in para 3 of A2, apparently the working of the pedal is discussed as well. We'll use A2[2] as 54(2) but will offer additional evidence. A5 is an internet disclosure made before the  effective date. We know A5 was public as someone commented on this on the same day. 

Claim 1 is not novel in light of document of A4. One feature that required some care was 'a sensor for detecting dead spots in the pedal stroke'. A4 discloses strain gauges. From A3[5] we know that these are thin metal film sensors, and so they are sensors. From A5[3] or A7[9] we know that they are for power measurement. Power measurement can be used to detect dead spots, since these are the points with minimum power, A1[4].

Claim 1 is also not novel in light of A5. Also A5 uses strain gauges, so the same argument as above is needed. 

The novelty attacks do not extend to claim 2, so we need to go to inventive step. For the closest prior art, it seems that only A4 is a reasonable starting point. Note that A5 is not the closest prior art since it uses a pedal axel that does not rotate in the pedal. Starting from A5, it seems impossible to reach the claim. 

Having selected A4 as the closest prior art, we need to decide on the distinguishing features. This gave some discussion. How much of the feature  'the road racing pedal further comprising a pedal controller (109) for actuating the spindle drive' is disclosed in A4? A 'pedal controller' is mentioned in A4, but it is not the right pedal controller as it is not for actuating a spindle drive. Another sticking point is that A4 mentions a lot of optional features: strain gauges, a cadence sensor, a GPS sensor, a pedal controller, a wireless signal transmitter, a receiver. Are we allowed to select from this list just the strain gauges and the pedal controller? If one decides not the take the pedal controller from A4 it might cause problems later with A2, which will put the controller on the crank not on the pedal. To get the best attack, we have opted to argue that A4 discloses the sensor (so that we can use our novelty attack) and a pedal controller (so we avoid arguing its location). 

The skilled person will then remember what he learned at Eurobike 2017, and find the configuration of magnets. This must have been disclosed then, because the poster shows a magnet configuration with 6 permanent and 6 electromagnets. Six magnets falls in the claimed range. 

A2 is compatible because A4 already discloses a stator/rotor system, although used for a different purpose, clearly A4 has room for these magnets. Although A2 teaches putting the pedal controller on the crank, as A4 already has a pedal controller he would adapt the existing controller instead. Moreover, A2 is not suitable for road racing, so using the existing pedal controller would probably better.

As an alternative attack, one could opt not to take the strain gauge from A4, in that case one has to argue that the magnets are suitable for detecting dead spots in the pedal stroke, which one could do from A2. One could also opt not to take the pedal controller from A4, and in that case an additional argument is needed why the pedal controller might be moved to the pedal.  

For claim 3 we will extend our inventive step attack on claim 2. A2 already discloses receiving of  pedal angle information at a bicycle computer, but it uses a proprietary algorithm for computing dead spots. In other words, Eurobike 2017 will not enable this for the skilled person. So we need to get another bicycle computer that does this. A3 and A7 both have computers, but A3 seems the easier option as it discloses the displaying of dead spots. Everything is compatible since A2, A3, and A4 all use BOT technology. 

As an alternative, one could argue that 'showing the position of said dead spots on a display of said computer' cannot contribute to the inventiveness because it is merely an alternative way of presenting information. Here one argues that dead spots are already communicated to the user in A2 through resistance in the cycling, merely providing another way to receive the same information cannot be inventive.  Some users may prefer a foot interface as in A2 or they may prefer a visual interface as in claim 3, but such a matter of preference cannot make the  claim inventive. As the paper provides the means to do an attack without this argument (and because claim 7 will also use presentation of information, though one cannot know this now) a conventional partial problems attack was probably expected.

Claim 4 lacks novelty over A7. One feature that requires some care is the chain drive. However, A7 discloses front chainrings and rear sprockets connected by a roller chain, which is defined in A1[2] as a chain drive. 

Claim 5 lacks inventive step over A7+A6. Starting from A7, the skilled person needs to find a stiff, light material that resists impacts. A6, page 2, left column, second para, tells him that CFRP has all these properties. Moreover, taking nanotube-reinforced epoxy resins will make it only tougher. The fibers and resin form a matrix A1[25]. For the number of filaments per tow, A6 has the range 7K to 9K for non-frame parts such as pedals. 7K falls in the claimed range. Although 7k-9K is less stiff, this has to be seen relative to the even stiffer frame range. According to the previous section any CFRP is still stiffer than conventional materials. For the elastic modulus, we will also take the preferred range 350 GPa-500 GPa, both endpoints fall in the claimed range. Combining these ranges like this is allowed, since we took either preferred embodiments, or we've taken the specified range for that component.

Claim 6 has added subject matter. Claim 6 was introduced during examination and claims ceramic ball bearings without the ceramic races. But the latter are essential, so we are isolating features that are functionally or structurally related. This is an intermediate generalization. Guidelines H-V, 3.2.1

Claim 7 is not inventive over A3. Annex 3 is the closest prior art, there is no combining document. 

Claim 7 is an independent claim. Claim 4 is not included by reference. The only requirement is that the bicycle computer of claim 7 is suitable for the system of claim 4. For that the only thing we need is that the bicycle computer of A3 can communicate with a sensor. A3[5] and [6] discloses that angle measuring sensors, and power meters send information through a controller to the bicycle computer. So they are in communication. A3[7] discloses the display features except it uses an arrow instead of a heart icon and angry emoticon. This change in the presentation of information does not contribute to the technical solution of a technical system, and so it cannot make the system inventive, G-II, 3.7

An alternative approach would be to say that such non-technical elements do not even contribute to novelty (as was done in Paper C 2008, in which non-technical features were disregarded when assessing novelty, citing T553/02), but at least since G3/08, mixed claims are commonly handled in the Comvik approach. 

In summary:

Claim 1: Novelty A4, Novelty A5

Claim 2: Inventive step A4+A2

Claim 3: Inventive step A4+A2+A3

Claim 4: Novelty A7

Claim 5: Inventive step A7+A6

Claim 6: Added subject matter

Claim 7: Inventive step A3

(c) DeltaPatents

Annex - the claims

C1-1:

1. A road racing pedal comprising a pedal body (101) with a pedal cavity (102), a pedal

spindle (103) for attaching the pedal body (101) to a bicycle crank arm (105) and a
sensor for detecting dead spots in the pedal stroke.

2. A road racing pedal according to claim 1, wherein the pedal spindle (103) is placed
within the pedal cavity (102) and the sensor comprises a pedal spindle drive (106),
with at least four electromagnets (108) placed on the pedal spindle (103) and at least
four permanent magnets (107) placed on the pedal body (101) within the pedal cavity
(102) and facing the electromagnets (108), the road racing pedal further comprising a
pedal controller (109) for actuating the spindle drive (106).

3. A pedal system comprising a road racing pedal according to claim 2 and further
comprising a bicycle computer (110) adapted to receive pedal angle information and
to identify instantaneous dead spots in the pedal stroke and further showing the
position of said dead spots on a display of said computer.

C1-2:

4. A bicycle with a pedalling efficiency improving system comprising a chain drive,
clipless pedals, a sensor, and a bicycle computer (110) in communication with said
sensor.

5. The bicycle of claim 4, wherein the clipless pedals comprise a pedal body (101) made
of carbon fibre reinforced plastic with a carbon nanotube-reinforced epoxy matrix and
with carbon fibre tows of 6 000 to 8 000 strands, with each tow having a tensile elastic
modulus of between 350 GPa and 600 GPa.

6. The bicycle of claim 4, wherein the clipless pedals further comprise ceramic ball
bearings (104).

7. A bicycle computer (110) for the pedalling efficiency improving system of claim 4, the
bicycle computer (110) displaying a heart icon on the computer display when the
pedalling efficiency of the pedalling efficiency improving system surpasses 80% and
displaying an angry emoticon when the pedalling efficiency is below 80%.

To all who sat the C-paper today:

How did you handle the situation with the paper being split into two parts? 

Was the split different than in 2021 and 2022, e.g., was also new prior art introduced in the second part?

What was the effect of the paper being split into two parts? 

How did you use the break?

How did this year's C-paper compare to the C papers of the last few years?

What was the effect of doing it online? Of typing your answer rather than writing it by hand? Could you benefit from being able to copy from the exam paper into your answer? And from copying parts of your answer elsewhere into your answer?

How did you experience taking the exam from your home or office location rather than in an examination center?

What was the effect of the situation that you had to take the exam largely from the screen (as only a  part could be printed) rather than from paper?

Did you experience any technical difficulties during the exam? How & how fast were they solved?

Any pleasant and/or unpleasant surprises?

The paper and our answers

Copies of the paper will be provided on this blog as soon as we have received copies of the papers, preferably in all three languages (English, French and German). Should you have a copy, please send it to any of our tutors or to training@deltapatents.com.
(We expect that the  C paper will be made available soon in all three languages from the EQE website, Compendium, PaperC )

The core of our answers will be given as soon as possible in a separate blog post.

Please be reminded that you can view and print/download  copy of your exam answer after the exam, via the eye below the "1. Paper"-icon in the bottom left part of the flow window of the respective flow. (It may not be available immediately after the official end of the (part of the) paper, but only 30-60 minutes later.) Apart from the pre-printable parts, the paper itself cannot be downloaded (unless you copied it in full into your exam answer).

We look forward to your comments!

Comments are welcome in any official EPO language, not just English. So, comments in German and French are also very welcome!

Please do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 16-03-2023 16:23"), whereas using your real name or a pseudonym is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation. You do not need to log in or make an account - it is OK to just put your (nick) name at the end of your post.

Good luck with paper C 2023!

Our EQE blogs will be open for your comments and opinions w.r.t. the Pre-Exam, A, B, C and D shortly after the exams. We will post our (provisional) answers to the various papers shortly after the exam.  

Do not post any comments as to the merits of the answers of a certain exam paper/flow on the blogs while an exam/flow is still ongoing. Also, do not post the invigilator password or anything else that may be considered the breach of the exam regulations, instructions to the candidates, code of conducts, etc (see, e.g.,  EQE homepage, EQE notices, EQE online website, MyEQE, and the emails from the EQE secretariat).

All candidates, as well as tutors who helped candidates prepare for EQE 2023, are invited to contribute to the discussions on our EQE blogs! You can post your comments in English, French or German. You are invited to post your comments under your real name, but it is also possible to use a nickname if you wish to hide your identify.

The DeltaPatents team

NB: you can not comment to this blog post; comments will be accepted from a new blog post as of 16:15

 To all who sat the C-paper today:

The theme of this year's paper was football. Specifically, the electronic detection of goals.  

This was the second year with the online electronic paper C. Like last year, you were provided with all of the prior art in the first half, but not with all of A1's description. Last year the claims were split down the middle, with 3 claims in each half; this year the first half had 2 claims and the second half had 4 claims. 

Some felt that last year's claim split was not ideal, as most of the analysis is done in the first half. This year with one claim less to do, there was enough time to read everything. 

The application did not claim priority; thus the effective date section was straightforward. But the list of evidence made up for it, and was more challenging, with a lot of admissibility issues: A2 was a newsletter for which you would have to argue that it was available in time. A3 was clearly too late, but contained lots of information about past prior art.  A4 referred to a conference, but with the twist that the slides of the talk were provided to the participants. A5 was regular prior art and A6 a 54(3). 

Claim 1 was a special type of yarn that could be used in a ball. The yarn has a metal wire which makes it electronically detectable. 

1. A hybrid yarn (1) for use under high mechanical stress conditions, such as for a ball (9) for a ball game, wherein the yarn (1) comprises an inner strand of  chemically-resistant organic fibres (2) and a circumferential outer layer consisting of 10-20 thin electrically conductive metal wires (4), the thin electrically conductive metal wires (4) being twisted around the inner strand along the longitudinal axis of the yarn (1), whereby a void is formed between the inner strand and the outer layer by removal of material using a solvent.

All documents are in time and need to be considered. The 54(3) document A6 missed two features (no void, and the wires where the wrong way around). So that one is unlikely. A2 discloses a yarn but misses the void. A3 only discloses metal yarn, so seems even worse. A4 misses a couple of features, e.g., the materials of both the inner and outer strands, and the number of conductive strands. A4 also misses all of the purpose features (high stress, a ball). Seems A4 is a typical D2, but one could keep it on the shortlist if nothing better comes along. 

A5 seems to have everything then, except for the feature 'removal of material using a solvent.' A5 does remove an intermediate layer but uses a thermal method. This feature is a product by process feature, so one needs to ask yourself if novelty is imparted through it--can you tell the difference in the end product without having seen the manufacturing?

This one, unfortunately, led to a split jury here, with some of us arguing one way and some the other.  

One could argue that Claim 1 is novel over A5. That, you can tell the difference, and so the feature does impart novelty. The argument would be that A5 explains that the thermal treatment is not so great, as it leaves material behind, leading to a non-constant void. A1 explains that chemical removal is a more precise method leading to well-defined and constant dimensions. These are things you can see in the final product. In fact, A1 spends two paragraphs on explaining why chemical removal is better. Also A4 seems to imply that chemicals remove all of the intermediate layer. 

Once one opts for an inventive step attack, the D2 document can only be A4. A weakness in the inventive step attack is that A1 explains that a constant void is good for mechanical resistance (otherwise you 'rupture even under low mechanical stress conditions'). But A4 does not mention this effect at all. So, here we get the missing feature from A4, and we don't exploit the product by process part. 

Final attack is Novelty A5 or Inventive step A5 + A4.

Claim 2

2. Method for producing the hybrid yarn (1) according to claim 1, comprising the
steps of
a. providing an intermediate layer of polyamide fibres (3) around the inner strand
of chemically-resistant organic fibres (2),
b. twisting the thin electrically conductive metal wires (4) around the intermediate
layer of polyamide fibres,
c. chemically removing the polyamide fibres (3) by a treatment with a solvent
consisting of 40-60 wt% of trifluoroacetic acid in acetone to provide a void
between the inner strand and the thin metal wires.

We need to consider if we have a closest prior art change. Perhaps we need to switch from A5 to A4? But A4 still misses the materials of the inner and outer layers, and the electrically conductivity. Still no purpose features, although these are now perhaps less important as we are not formally dependent on claim 1. None of these seem to be of sufficient importance to tip the scales though. It seems we can stay with A5 as closest prior art. If we do, we get the difference feature of claim 1, but also the particular solvent. Fortunately, both the solvent and range are anticipated by A4. A1 mentions as an additional effect that trifluoroacetic acid is a good cost compromise. A4 does not mention costs, so we fudge this a bit, perhaps cost is not really technical, or implicit, or inherent, pick one. Final attack is A5 + A4. When drafting the attack, you may have to a good chunk of the novelty analysis again, to make sure every nitty-gritty bit is disclosed. 

Part 2

Claim 3: added matter
Claim 3 was introduced during examination, and should therefore have support from the application as filed.
Claim 3 as filed, corresponds to claims 3 and 4 as granted, includes all features of granted claim 3, but also include the features of present claim 4, in particular to use 'antenna yarn', ie., a hybrid yarn consisting of organic fibres (2) and thin metal wires (4). Antenna yarn is essntial. Only through such a
yarn is a stable three-dimensional configuration of the antenna is guaranteed. Moreover, the yarn facilitates stability and ensures a long lifetime. Without the yarn, the effect of the invention is lost. [19].
Thus claim 3 cannot be based on claim 3 as filed.

In addition to the Art.123(2) attack, also two auxiliary novelty attacks were possible.

A first novelty attack over the first model Vuwuseeler introduced in 2010, citing A3 as evidence. If you did not do this attack for claim 3, you would need a lot of this anyhow for the attack on dependent claim 4.

A second novelty attack over A6 (Art.54(3) document). If you did not do this attack for claim 3, you would need this attack anyhow for the dependent claim 4.

Claim 4(3) is not novel over A6 and Claim 4 is not inventive over The first Vuvuseela ball (2010) (described in A3) and A2.

Claim 5. Inventive step: first Vuwuseeler ball + arrangement (as described in A3, page 2) + second Vuwuseeler arrangement (as described in A3, page 3) + A2.

Claim 6 Basically the same attack as for claim 5. A3 does not disclose a computer-implemented method for adapting the odds in live sports betting. The latter feature is not technical, and thus does not contribute to inventive step. Accordingly, claim 6 is not inventive for the same reasons as claim 5.

The "Information on the schedule for the EQE 2023 examination papers" is now available on the EQE website. 

The EQE 2023 will take place online using the same setup as the EQE of 2021 and 2022.

Paper C will have the same syllabus and character as before, but it will be split into two parts of 3 hours each. The first part is to be completed before the break, with the second part only becoming available after the break. It will not be possible to go back to the first part after the break. Paper C lasts six hours (9:30-12:30 + 13:15-16:15)

Candidates will be allowed to print everything except the claims of the patent in suit/opposed. The documents allowed for printing will be made available approximately ten minutes before the start of each part.

(Note that that the document may be subject to minor changes as testing continues. Please check the EQE website for updates)

Please feel invited to post your comments. You are allowed to post anonymously and do not need an account, but please give your name or a nickname for an easy and inter-human interaction.

Good luck with paper C!

Our EQE blogs will be open for your comments and opinions w.r.t. the Pre-Exam, A, B, C and D shortly after the exams. We will post our (provisional) answers to the various papers shortly after the exam. To facilitate the discussions, we will also post copies of the papers as soon as possible after we received reasonably clean copies.

Do not post any comments as to the merits of the answers of a certain exam paper/flow on the blogs while an exam/flow is still ongoing. Also, do not post the invigilator password or anything else that may be considered the breach of the exam regulations, instructions to the candidates, code of conducts, etc (see, e.g.,  e-EQE website and the emails from the EQE secretariat).

All candidates, as well as tutors who helped candidates prepare for EQE 2022, are invited to contribute to the discussions on our EQE blogs! You can post your comments in English, French or German. You are invited to post your comments under your real name, but it is also possible to use a nickname if you wish to hide your identify.

The DeltaPatents team

NB: you can not comment to this blog post; comments will be accepted from a new blog post as of 16:15

 A mock C exam under exam conditions allowing you to test the updated WISEflow version with video/audio invigilation is available on 10 December 2021. See here.

The main purpose of the December Mocks is to test your equipment and settings, including camera and audio.

You can practice the papers at a later moment, as they will again be made available as Mock papers for a longer period, but without invigilation.

It has also been announced by email from the EQE secretariat to all candidates that, i a further mock under exam conditions will be conducted on 3 February 2022. The purpose of this mock is to check your equipment and settings. This mock will not contain a new paper, but a known paper used in the currently open mocks. 

Please feel invited to post your experiences with the Mock and the platform, comments and tips as comments to this blog. It is appreciated if you use your name or a nickname in your post, for easy reference (you can use the Anonymous option and close the message with your name, or use the google account or name option).

Update 14 December 2021:

Today, the EQE secretariat has informed the candidates by email of a new date for the epi December Mock with a new paper, as well as with information on the further availability of the Mocks as well as a date for a further mock under exam conditions (3 February 2022) to check your equipment and settings.

The email is cited below in full (colouring added):

Dear candidate,

1. The mock paper C which was offered to you last Friday, 10 December 2021, was a repetition of a mock paper made available already in January and October 2021.
   That is why a new mock paper provided by epi will be made available on:
   21 December 2021,
   Part C1 9:30 – 12:30 h CET;
   Part C2 13:15 – 16:15 h CET.
   
   You will be able to test WISEflow under exam conditions, i.e.: timed examination with video and audio invigilation (AI and human). However, there will only be very few human invigilators present (far less than during the recent mocks).
   
   
2. The flows for papers for A, B and D containing the mock papers provided by epi in December 2021 will be reopened as of 15 December 2021.
   The flow with the new epi December mock paper C will be re-opened shortly after 21 December 2021.
   These flows will not be under exam conditions, hence not timed and without any video and audio invigilation (AI nor human). 
   
   
3. In addition, a further mock under exam conditions will be conducted on 3 February 2022. The purpose of this mock is to check your equipment and settings. This mock will not contain a new paper, but a known paper used in the currently open mocks. Further details on this mock will be communicated in due course.
   
   
4. For your convenience, we repeat some useful links:

• WISEflow recommendations for the configuration of the environment for the upcoming EQE: https://epo-wiseflow.ladesk.com/772936-Lockdown-computer-recommendations
• documentation on the examination system (user guides, troubleshooting, etc) available on the dedicated WISEflow website.

Please note that testing your equipment under exam conditions is indispensable. Support might not be possible for equipment which has not been tested in advance.

Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincères salutations

Examination Secretariat
European Qualifying Examination EQE
European Patent Office

We're still working on double checking the solution to Paper C 2021, but we didn't want to delay posting a solution any longer.  

My first impression was that the first half was a bit more work than the second half. The claims related to some fairly complex mechanical structures, so in the first half you spent quite some time getting a grip on things. The second half had more tricky features though, although perhaps a bit less work.  

A funny detail is that some of the dramatis personae of Paper C 2015 returned in this paper. In 2015 Mr. Eilasie Kacez of Sabela Sports Industries asked the attorney Ms Molly Dorsett Pauley to file an opposition against Winterwute Corp. Now in 2021, Eilasie Kaceth (the same person?) switched jobs, but again asks Ms Molly Dorsett Pauley to file an opposition against Winterwute Corp.

We found the following attacks against the claims in the first part

Claim 1: Not novel against A3

Claim 2: Not inventive against A3 + A4 + A6

Claim 3:  Not novel against A3

For the claims in the second part

Claim 4: Not novel against A5

Claim 5: Not inventive against A4 + A5

Claim 6 +1 : added subject matter, no disclosure for spacers and 35% of RZCH

Claim 6+5 + range 17-23 has partial priority from P2. Is not inventive against A4+A5

Claim 6+5 + range 23-35 has the filing date. Is not inventive against A2+A6

A difficulty with claim 4 are the two features "a structure providing buckling resistance" and the "anti-buoyancy means".  However the double steel wall filled sandwiching the concrete seems to provide the anti-buckling function. I cited A3[02] as evidence in support of this.  The concrete also compensates for buoyancy so it is an anti-buoyancy means. I noted in the comments, that there many suggestions for an alternative inventive step attack on this claim. 

Claim 6 is an or-claim, one part of which can be attacked with added subject matter (6+1). The other part seems a first for Paper C, as it can claim partial priority. Given the worry of the client in his letter, I suppose you need to do two attacks on claim 6+5 to counter the possibility that part of claim 6 might remain. 

A2 has a tantalizing section with tourists sneaking a peak from a half finished device. I couldn't see how to utilize this though. 

Some analysis blocks

Effective dates of the claims (to be handed in)

Information provided by client:

Annex 1 claims priority of the applications NO20150000333 and NO20150000355. NO20150000333 has the following parts of Annex 1: [1] to [11] of the description and figures 1 to 3. NO20150000333 has only one claim and it is identical to claim 1 in Annex 1.

NO20150000355 is identical to the following parts of Annex 1: paragraphs [1] to [22], claims 1 to 5 and figures 1-5. Annex 1 was granted for European application EP16180339.8, which was filed containing all parts of NO20150000355 and additionally [23] of Annex 1.

Claim 6 was added during examination.

Claim 6 is of particular concern to us because we want to commercialize our devices using an elastomer containing not only 17 to 23 % by weight of RZCH but also, and in particular, containing 23 to 35 % by weight of RZCH.

Claim 1(indep): Basis in NO 333 (already as a claim), entitled to the priority of NO 333.

Claim 2(1), 3(ind), 4 (ind), 5(4): Were present as claims in NO 355 and not in NO 333. Have a basis in [12]-[22]. This was first described in NO 355. Entitled to the priority of NO 355.

Claim 6: added during examination. It requires that the elastomer contains 17-35% RZCH. Covers two embodiments (‘OR’ in the dependency)

First embodiment: claim 6(1) “elastomer in spacer in between reservoir and anti-buoyancy means”.
Basis for the composition of the elastomer in the spacer is in A1 [11], where it shows 13-47%. This gives no basis for the claimed narrower range. An objection is raised under Art.100(c), Art.123(2) EPC. No date is given to this claimed embodiment.

Second embodiment: claim 6(5) “elastomer in seal in between the segments”.
Basis for the composition of the elastomer in the seal is
A1 [22] >=17%, pref 23% and
A1 [23] alternative range 23-35%

In line with GL H-IV 2.4, this gives a basis for the range from the lower value 17 to the highest mentioned value 35. Thus no added subject-matter.

Of this composed range, the complexity lies in that the part 17-23% is disclosed in [22], present in NO 355 And that the part 23-35% in only present at filing of A1. This thus leads to a nice partial priority (first time ever in paper C).

Thus we have to split claim 6(5) into two (conceptual) parts:
a) 17-23% entitled to priority of NO 355.

b) 23-35% entitled to the filing date of A1.

Evidence list (to be handed in)

A3, A5 and A6 are published before the first priority date and can be used under Art.54(2) EPC for all claims.

A4 is a European application published after the first priority but before the second priority. A4 can thus be used under Art.54(2) EPC for claims entitled to the second priority or having the filing date, being claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

A4 has an effective filing date before the first priority and can be used under Art.54(3) for claim 1.

A2 is an excerpt from an article published on 06.08.2015 which lies after the second priority date but before the filing date of A1. The content of the article was discussed a week earlier, also in the same period. This can be used under Art.54(2) to attack claims entitled to the filing date, being claim 6(5) 23-35% option.

Fig.1 of A2 was visible from a tourist barge at a shipyard of the Calypso Foundation in the harbour of Warnemouth in the last week of May 2015. This lies before the second priority date. The tourists could see that workers strung wire ropes through duct channels in the pieces of steel to assemble them into an elongated structure. The tourist were not bound to secrecy. Available to the public is also the part of Fig.1 which could be visually observed. The footnote of A2 makes clear that the number of strands of the wire cannot be observed. This prior use, as evidenced by A2, can be used to attack claims 2-6.

The footnote of A2 describes common general knowledge known since 1970. This can be used under Art.54(2) for all claims.

Definitions, examples, properties (analysis, part of it to be used in your answer)

• Reservoir A1 [02] is any compartment surrounded by a wall, out of which compartment water can be pumped out and into which water can be let in.
• Electromechanical components necessary for underwater hydroelectric energy storage A1 [02]: an electric motor 14, a pump 15, a turbine 16 and a generator 17.
• Buckling resistance A1 [04] means that at the deployment depth the reservoir does not collapse irrespective of the amount of water pumped out of the compartment
  
• Anti-buoyancy means A1 [05] Anti-buoyancy means ensure that the device as a whole does not rise irrespective of the amount of water pumped out of the compartment. Known are anchors attached to the seabed, or ballast whose weight provides a downward force. A1 [09] The anti-buoyancy means of the first embodiment comprise holding means  and a ballast body 27 connected thereto. The weight of the ballast body 27 provides a downward force. Preferably, the ballast body 27 is made of concrete and rests on the ground 22 of a body of water
  
• First reinforcing arrangement A1 [13] may be a framework of reinforcing beams
  
• Second reinforcing arrangement A1 [15] may be a stiff mesh of steel bars
  
• Tensioning tubes A1 [19]: duct channels or boreholes or other types of cylindrical cavities extending lengthwise within the walls of the reservoir sections.
  
• Reservoir sections A1 [21] may be implemented as pipe segments
  
• Epipelagic depths A2 P.3, i.e. depths down to 200 m below sea level. Shallow depth A1 [14]
  
• Mesopelagic depths A2 P.3, i.e. depths between 200 and 1 000 m below sea level. Lower depth A1 [14]
• Devices which store energy underwater: subsea storage tanks for petroleum products, hydroelectric power plants. A2 p.3, l.10
• Gasket is a sealing layer A5 [06]
• Bumper: elastic spacer A5 [11]

Feature-effect pairs  (analysis, part of it to be used in your answer)

A1 [05] Anti-buoyancy means ensure that the device as a whole does not rise irrespective of the amount of water pumped out of the compartment.

A1 [10] Holding means facilitate deployment and enable servicing because the reservoir can be brought into and out of the holding means as needed.

A1 [11] Spacers are made from an elastomer to reduce the impact if the reservoir is
inadvertently moved against the spacers

A1 [13] First reinforcing arrangement:
the forces arising from the hydrostatic pressure are at least partly counterbalanced. The beneficial effect is a reduction of the net resulting mechanical stress on the reservoir's wall; A1 [14] the range of usage is extended to lower depths (for instance depths greater than 200 m below sea level), where the higher hydrostatic pressure allows more energy to be stored than at said shallow depth

A1 [15] Second reinforcing arrangement as a stiff mesh of steel bars 34 laid into the ballast body if the latter is made of concrete - improves stiffness, so the ballast body is able to better withstand any bending strain it is subjected to; A1 [16] allows safe deployment of the device in locations where the ground of the body of water is uneven.

A4 [10] reinforces ballast (concrete with stiff mesh of steel bars) for resting on uneven seabed [11] -> D2 for claim 2

A1 17] Using more than 7 strands requires a more complicated braiding technique, which is considerably more expensive.

A1 [19] Internal tensioning system of wire ropes strung through tensioning tubes is inherently protected from outside damage. A1 [21] The internal tensioning system of wire ropes guarantees a long service period.

A5 [07] A wire rope rigging as in the tank of figures 1a and 1b is preferred because the wire ropes are shielded against external damage so that a long service period can be expected -> D2 for claim 5

A1 [21] Reservoir sections 10 may be pre-manufactured at low cost.

A1 [22] Sealing layer should comprise an elastomer to provide a watertight joint. For long-term stability against deformation, the elastomer should contain at least 17 % by weight of RZCH. Preferably, the amount of RZCH is 23 % by weight or less. This means that the 20 elastomer is not very rigid and is well suited to shallow depths.

A4 [04] A gasket made from an elastomer may be used to ensure a watertight

connection between adjacent pipe segments. For sufficient long-term stability against
deformation, the elastomer should contain at least 10 % by weight of RZCH. The
inventors have found that the content of RZCH has to be 20 % by weight or less.
5 Otherwise the elastomer is very rigid and may not be watertight

A1 [23] 23-35%. Stability at greater depth

A6 [12] a higher amount of RZCH to be used in the elastomer for the sealing layer, for instance 30 % by weight of RZCH results in improved long-term stability against deformation so that the reservoir can remain in service for longer -> D2 for claim 6(5) 23-35% option

Overview of the technical field in the claims and prior art

========================================================================

Good luck with paper C!

Our EQE blogs will be open for your comments and opinions w.r.t. the Pre-Exam, A, B, C and D shortly after the exams. We will post our (provisional) answers to the various papers shortly after the exam. To facilitate the discussions, we will also post copies of the papers as soon as possible after we received reasonably clean copies.

Do not post any comments as to the merits of the answers of a certain exam paper/flow on the blogs while an exam/flow is still ongoing. Also, do not post the invigilator password or anything else that may be considered the breach of the exam regulations, instructions to the candidates, code of conducts, etc (see, e.g.,  e-EQE website and the emails from the EQE secretariat).

All candidates, as well as tutors who helped candidates prepare for EQE 2021, are invited to contribute to the discussions on our EQE blogs! You can post your comments in English, French or German. You are invited to post your comments under your real name, but it is also possible to use a nickname if you wish to hide your identify.

The DeltaPatents team

NB: you can not comment to this blog post; comments will be accepted from a new blog post as of 16:15

"To allow candidates to test the system also close to the real examination conditions, a second mock (Mock 2) is planned for the week of 1 to 5 February 2021. The examination papers will take place during that week at the same week days and times as the real examination, see here." (see e-EQE webpage)

Today, 5 February 2021, Paper C of Mock 2 was organized, using the Wiseflow platform which will be used for the e-EQE 2021 in the week of 1-5 March 2021.

Paper C was split into two parts. The first part was to be completed before the break, the second part only became available after the break. It was not possible to go back to the first part after the break. (see also our previous post).

According to the FAQ:

• The first part of the notice of opposition must be handed in at the end of the first part of the exam.
• The second part of the notice of opposition must be handed in at the end of the second part of the exam.
• The second part of the notice of opposition will form, together with the first part you already provided, the complete notice of opposition which will be marked. 
• If an attack which is available in the first part of the paper is discussed only during the second part of the exam, no marks will be awarded to that attack.
  
  
• You will be able to print your answer to the first part of paper C during the break between the two parts. To do this, you will have to go to the "information on flows" page (see point 6.5 in the user guide) and download your answer before printing it.

Paper

Mock 2's C paper was based on C 2017 (original paper here; original examiner's report here), adapted to the 2-part form of the C in e-EQE by providing only part of the claims of Annex 1 in part 1 (claims 5-7) and the rest in part 2 (claims 1-4), and by indicating that today is 8 March 2017.

This printable parts of the Mock 2 C paper comprises:

• Letter from opponent - mock/C/EN/1-2:
• We would like you to file an opposition on behalf of Tirez Cie against European Patent EP 2 394 232 B1 (Annex 1) granted to Zieher GmbH
• Annex 1 claims priority from two EP applications, namely EP 10223223 and EP 11117055.
• EP 10223223 consisted of claims 1-4, paragraphs [0001] to [0014] and the figures of Annex 1 as originally filed. The subject-matter of claims 5-7 of Annex 1 is identical to claims 12-14 of EP 11117055 and the content of paragraphs [0015] to [0018] of Annex 1 can be found in EP 11117055. However, no fees were paid and these previous applications are deemed withdrawn.
• Claim 3 in Annex 1 as originally filed only depended on claim 1. During examination, the dependency was changed. No other amendments were carried out.

• Annex 1 (without claims) - mock/C/EN/3-7
• EP 2 394 232 B1 – Device for removing corks
• Date of publication and mention of the grant of the patent: 15 June 2016 (Bulletin 2016/24)
• The present invention relates to devices for removing corks and cork extraction elements.
• Claims only available online
• Annex 2 - mock/C/EN/10-13
• IT TO20021082 A1 – Pneumatic bottle opener
• Annex 3 - mock/C/EN/14-17
• FR 2 625 455 – Champagne bottle opener
• Annex 4 - mock/C/EN/18
• Wine Review, May 2011 – Wine Fair in Oporto
• “A particularly popular section of the fair was the corkscrew section.”
• Annex 5 - mock/C/EN/19-22
• EP 0 503 334 A1 – Bottle opener
• Annex 6 - mock/C/EN/23-26
• EP 2 088 778 A1 – Corkscrew

Please share your experiences with the platform, as well as any comments to the paper. Particularly, 

• What was your experience doing the paper online in general, e.g. typing your answer rather than writing it by hand?
• How did you manage keeping a clear overview of the various pieces of information (client's letter, A1, the other Annexes A2-A6)?
• Could you benefit from being able to copy from the exam paper into your answer? And from copying parts of your answer elsewhere into your answer?
• Could you download/print your answer to the first part during the lunch break? Did you use it during the second part? How?
• Would your complete notice (answer to apart 1 and 2 together) gave been different if you would have done the paper in one session, without a break? E.g., because you could amend your answer to the first part (amend your attacks, add additional attacks) while working on the second part?

The FAQ on the EQE website has been updated today to provide the following information (emphasis added and reformatted):

Graphically, this may be represented graphically as:

---

Update 28/01/2021: The FAQ on the EQE website has been extended with the following extra information (emphasis added and reformatted):

Updated 01/2021 - For paper C, will I be able to see my answer to the first part during the second part?

No, 

but you will be able to print your answer to the first part of paper C during the break between the two parts. 

To do this, you will have to go to the "information on flows" page (see point 6.5 in the user guide) and download your answer before printing it. 

Note from the blog editor: Point 6.5 of the user guide for Mock 1 ("WISEflow guide for EQE candidates (Version for Mock 1)", available from the e-EQE page; check the page for new editions of the Guide) provides:

"6.5. Terminating the flow

To submit your answer, click the “Go to hand in” button and confirm the submission in the window which pops up. [...]

Once you have handed in your answer, you should close the LockDown browser and log out. [...].

To view your submitted answer, you can log in again and navigate to the flow information page without launching FLOWlock. You can download a copy of your answer and request a receipt for its submission from the flow information page. [...]."

Updated 01/2021 - Since the opposition form has been abolished, how can I provide the required information in my answer?

In this respect, please consult the Notice of the Examination Board.

Note from the blog editor: Guidelines D-III, 6 "Content of the notice of opposition" may be helpful.

---

Also see "Information on the schedule for the EQE 2021 examination papers" and our other blogs in our general EQE section