eqe 2021 results

 

The wording of the GL is perhaps not as clear as it could be. We compiled a complete version of the D 2021 paper (both D1 parts, the DII part and the calendars).It is available via the link in the blog post. All our answers in the claims analysis part correspond to the answers in the Examiner's Report, possibly except 12.3 of our version (12.4 in the Examiner's Report): for that it is unclear whether the answer is FALSE or whether it is neutralized as no explicit answer is given, the argumentation suggests FALSE, but the argumentation also provides "the term is. The European qualifying examination (EQE) tests candidates' knowledge and aptitude to represent applicants in EPO proceedings. W-JP is the that the paper does not indicate since when we manufacture SPRINGY (S) (see The situation would be different if c was described as essential. patent situation A SPRINGY leash with the YELP modification and a, P-EP is the first there may be basis to amend to S+Y+A+B, that claim is also not enabled due to Delta Patents. patent situation A SPRINGY leash with an OH-NO fastener (S+O)? It is also (I don't want to brag, it's surely possible I would have overlooked the issue even if I'd taken the exam last year, but given that it's relatively evident, I really think it comes down to things not going to plan)By the end of the paper, I was so tired that I read question 4 wrong and started answering such wrong question to only realise 2 minutes before the end. not the first application from W for S+O: W-JP is. 54(3) but only if it enters the EP-phase - and it did not yet, So, The only condition is that the skilled person reading the application as filed understands that the new suspension has its originally described effect on the car, even in a car without the new wheels. No? In that case, Art. I answered the first question quite well, but then because of the time stress, i lost a lot of aspects in questions 2-4. No other applications 135 EPC. xaminer's Report is not yet available, nor is a full list of marks which would allow to determine the pass rate. Hi F,That is correct. would be new and inventive… if it would have been claimed in P-EP or if a 04/06/2021 Comments Off on Mercedes EQE Spied Again With Production Body And Lights. 27 days ago. Thank you very much Roel!Any information or idea about the results date for paper D? Since B is still working on developing B, the candidate should warn Pugz that protection for B does not exist yet, and that the only way to obtain protection for B is to file a new application claiming and sufficiently describing B. I totally agree with Rebecca MA: After more than four exam hours - starting 09:30 to 13:20 with only 25 minutes break to refresh the brain and grab some food - I found it very hard to stay focused during D2. As explained another, IT, application from W for S+O. leash with the YELP modification and a sound barrier (S+Y+B)? (We expect that the paper will become available in all three official EPO languages on the. inventive. therefore a late-filed document and the facts and arguments also late-filed. Compared to earlier D2-papers of 60 marks, the length and difficulty of this D2 matches well to 50 marks. As in the legal part, when you check your answers with ours, note that the order of the statements within a question may be different! 100(c). The calming sound emitted by AHHH is surprisingly effective at pacifying dogs. O in euro-PCT (the relevant part of the client's letter commenting on the invention developed with hount) is described as a secondary element that releases/opens when S is tensed (right now I have forgotten the exact wording in the client's letter). validate in patent situation A SPRINGY leash with an OH-NO fastener and a, HP-PCT is If this is not possible, the members of the EQE secretariat need to be fired. What do you think? 2021 - one of the most shocking EQE years if not the most shocking to date and doubtful will be the last. no priority so the eff date is the filing date of P-EP, Prior art S+Y+A is not claimed in granted P-EP. It may be that, in view of the lateness with which the Examination Board - for whatever reason - decided to react to the flawed assessment on the part of the examination committees, identifying and re-marking the papers concerned would have involved extra effort and held up the entire examination procedure. I also agree that dividing the paper into three parts was completely unnecessary and an added burden, even for "well prepared" candidates. patent protection for S, S+O, so both are free to make and sell these products. Was the balance between EPC and PCT right for you? was also already due on 18/1/21: can still be paid +50% surcharge until 18/1/21 Chinese Hi Roel,thanks for this excellent analysis. Note: the claims analysis part is discussed in our other blog post: all our answers to Q.1-Q.9 correspond to the answers in the Examiner's Report; Q.10 was completely neutralized (see below). HP-PCT, but We will post our (provisional) answers to the various papers shortly after the exam. Which first application from W for S+Y, W-IT does same subject-matter as granted claim 3 but in an independent claim: S+Y. and only appl from P for S+Y+A, P-EP claims been granted with a claim to S, on 5/8/19. would now know how to make B, cannot amend P-EP by introducing the technical filed opposition against W-EP, on grounds that claims are not novel/inventive In our view, this was a well-balanced exam. field in EN, so no translation needed, Pay search After grant To facilitate the discussions, we will also post copies of the papers as soon as possible after we received reasonably clean copies. with the summons the EPO indicated that the amended. In 2019 on 18 June (see https://www.epo.org/learning/eqe/statistics.html). W-IT was Research team at Seoul National University (Prof. Tae-Woo Lee) and University of Pennsylvania (Prof. Andrew M. Rappe) developed perovskite light-emitting diodes (PeLEDs) with an external quantum efficiency (EQE) of 23.4%. where denotes variance, denotes expectation, and includes all inputs but .In words, is the expected reduction in variance that would be obtained if could be fixed. The Examination Board itself recognised that the examination committees were wrong to award no points across the board in respect of a particular part of the paper (see Points II and III above). where validated. after 31 Oct 2020 (including any updated EPO & EPO-PCT Guidelines version 1 Nov 2020, if available) Recommended for EQE 2021, use the legal texts and documents valid on 31 Oct 2020, and the latest version of the EPO & EPO-PCT Guidelines available (1 Nov 2020 if available, or 1 Nov 2019). (see e-EQE webpage) Today, 3 February 2021, Paper A 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. This would potentially allow some rights be saved from P-EP? HotCopper has news, discussion, prices and market data on EQUUS MINING LIMITED. submit this new facts, arguments and evidence as soon as possible, the ground Funny subject-matter and nice names, hopefully makes candidates smile during a stressy exam! not be able to maintain the claim to S+Y+B, P suggests yet) Art.54(3) effect of HP-PCT is standard topic in D2 (and also frequently in D1), as is remedying missed entry Claim 3: Not novel against A3 . art shows B, so claim appears new. You're still far away from the R116 date, but I would submit it directly after requesting the FP to avoid any suspicion that you tried to hide it for the proprietor.- I would try to use the early 2018 market research as prior art. application or patent claims S+Y+A, but it is within the scope of the S+Y claim This also makes the joint applicant situation relevant, because a divisional must be filed by both applicants of mother application. Do you think it would instead be allowed to lower the marks required to be awarded a pass or compensable fail? in EPC stats where validated. Hence, c is not essential for the s+o combination (I.e. These results have defined a 250-metre-long mineralised trend that Equus will follow up with a 3000-metre drilling program. The sequence/numbering of the questions in our version of the paper corresponds to that used in this blog post. protection and acceleration to grant for S+O+C incl early entry into the EP phase of HP-PCT will, as usually, not Lack of Vielmehr folgt aus dem "fit-to-practice"-Kriterium die Verpflichtung der Prüfer, bei der Bewertung der einzelnen Teile der Antworten ihre Wertigkeit im Gesamtzusammenhang der Prüfungsarbeit nicht außer Acht zu lassen (D 3/00, ABl. Punkt II und III, oben). first application from W for S+O, W-IT is enter, its S+O+C would destroy the novelty of the reinstated claim in W-EP. at least Italy, the UK, France and Germany where WUFF sells. vor 19 Tagen. Pre-Exam 2021 - Results available in myEQE. thus indeed not be maintained in the opposition. At its core, however, the exam still tests the same legal knowledge and professional skills. this scope So now it's only wait and see until the results are published.Thx again. Also D 7/07:4. Claim 1: Not novel against A3. The D papers are designed such that missing out on one aspect has only limited impact on the rest of the paper. not enter the EP phase and did not fulfill the requirements of R.165. The offending feature has been deleted but replaced by a more restrictive term so the scope of the claim has been restricted, not extended. The situation as-is is quite standard, as are the improvements and the FTO questions, but with few tricky bits. on the leash to reduce the effect of strain on the dog. Basic Questions for Pre-Exam and Main Exam, References to the European Patent Convention, via a new application, as that will not be novel as P-EP has already been published (promptly after 2/7/18+18m->2/1/20, so probably 8/1/20) and discloses S+Y+A in the description. also get protection for S+O+C, as the 31 As SL above, I was quite a bit distracted by D1-1 being available only in German in the beginning - although it's my mother tongue, I studied / prepared everything in EN and therefore lost some time looking for the exam paper in EN. 123(2) and (3) EPC. So whether the results will be available earlier or later is hard to predict. above, the opposition will be successful in view of: claim to Which already selling). the OH-NO fastener detaches has a surprisingly positive effect on the behaviour granted with a claim to S+O+C as claim 2, W-IT does e-EQE 2021 - emails from candidates to EQE Secretariat will be forwarded to the Examination Board. P-EP is not an enabling prior art for S+Y+B. In the legal as well as the claims analysis parts, the order of the four statements of each question was randomized, i.e., it was different for different candidates. Auch die pauschale Zuerkennung von 10 Punkten durch die Prüfungskommission stellt eine Rechtsverletzung dar:6.1 Nach der Systematik der VEP sind Noten / "grades" / "notes" die Umsetzung der in Punkten ausgedrückten Bewertung der einzelnen Arbeit in eine der drei Noten "Bestanden", "Nicht Bestanden" und "Bestanden mit Ausgleichsmöglichkeit", und zwar nach einem festen, in Regel 4 (2) bis (4) ABVEP festgelegten Umrechnungsschlüssel. That is not our situation. If you check your answers with ours, note that the order of the questions and of the four statements from a single question may be different!!! [Update 2 April 2021 8:45:] The Examiner's Report was published yesterday on the EQE website (Compendium); all our answers to Q.1-Q.9 correspond to the answers in the Examiner's Report; Q.10 was completely neutralized (see below).Note that in the Examiner's Report the order of Q.7 and Q.8 is swapped compared to our version, and that the order of the statements in most of the questions is different from our version. but it seems impossible…: none of the escapes of the inescapable traps in G otherwise it would be almost always impossible for the applicant to benefit from that provision. I answered that we can amend the claim of P-EP being directed to S+Y+A+B,which should be allowable under R. 80 EPC, Art. of 2015-2019 (assuming your practiced those) w.r.t. Introduce these No further statements were neutralized in the legal part nor in the claims analysis part. priority, so claim to us in our key markets of the UK, France and Italy. to invalidate (a potentially reintroduced) S+O and S+O+C in W-EP: we need to Zu überprüfen ist durch die Beschwerdekammer, ob durch das beanstandete Vorgehen die VEP oder höherrangiges Recht verletzt wurden, wobei dieses Vorgehen aus zwei aufeinanderfolgenden, aber unterschiedlichen Maßnahmen bestand, nämlich- seitens des betreffenden Prüfungsausschusses: Keine Zuerkennung von Punkten bei Wahl des nach seiner Auffassung unrichtigen Ausgangsdokuments (siehe Punkt I., oben);- seitens der Prüfungskommission: die einheitlich für alle Arbeiten C der EEP 2007 ohne jeden Bezug auf die individuelle Bewertung der jeweiligen Arbeit verfügte Anhebung der Benotungsgrundlage um 10 zusätzliche Punkte.5. date of the claim to S+O is the filing date if W-EP, i.e. This suggestion will not be so useful in real life, but was nice to spot in my opinion.F. (2) My second question is, do you have an idea how DII would be scored? 123(3) would not allow deletion, as this would extend the protection conferred by the patent as granted. But if you think we overlooked a solution, please tell! In such a case the patent will have to be revoked under Art. There is legally no room for the Examination Board to change the marks awarded by the examination committee, in this case by the blanket addition of marks for all C papers, so the Board acted ultra vires in this regard. it prima facie prejudices the maintenance of the patent, the OD will admit it Overview full EQE training The path to the Main EQE starts with this Pre-Exam Integrated training. I am struggling to see how candidates can be compensated for the disruption of the language problems of D1.1 without awarding extra marks. It was not too difficult to find and organise all the information.Only two additional things I considered.- HP-PCT-EP will not only be admitted into the opposition proceedings because it's prima facie relevant, but also because it wasn't prior art yet when you filed the notice of opposition. Rant over and apologies. Join the HotCopper ASX share market forum today for free. W-IT is Trainees. + C, i.e. ISA, Flat FP fee The paper says in [009]: "However, we did not include a description of any suitable sound barrier and, indeed, we have not yet been able to obtain such a sound barrier that works" and there is no indication that they have any clue as to how to obtain it.So your suggestion would in my view be considered speculation and not attract marks according to the standard marking scheme. There are probably more than double the number of candidates compared to normal years, which will require more marking effort. Puppy Press, possibly J-EP as 54(2); and W-EP and potentially HP-PCT as 54(3), None of the prior validated in Italy and at this moment also valid in all London Agr Art. There The mere reasoning "it seems that c can be removed as non essential and not inextricably linked to the other elements. How did it go? WUFF will In question 2 of DII, I thought replacing B with A was allowable under the exception set out in G1/93 (feature cannot be maintained under Art.100(c) nor cannot it be removed without violating Art.123(3)). appoint one, H does not need to be involved, Then, FP can This might be useful given the importance of IT in the paper? Having said the above, I understand that it is a long shot.. Hi Roel,thx again for the excellent week-end preparation course! First application problem was clear, candidates should not have missed this. published and withdrawn, so cannot lead to patent protection itself. According to the EPO’s public announcement on 8 March 2021, it was a huge success. Last week filed, and W-EP is granted with claim 3 directed to S+Y, W-EP is the it would violate 123(3). We will post our (provisional) answers to the various papers shortly after the exam. But: P did the opposition, W can be expected to amend to a single claim directed to S+Y A SPRINGY Bruce wrote: "replace it with the only fixing means disclosed" - sticky tape.So:application as filed: - describes and claims: "device comprising... and a sticky tape" - with no other fixing means disclosed than sticky tape. (1) information into P-EP to make it enabled, as that would violate Art.123(2), As P-EP has already S+O+C, but only if HP=PCT would enter EP (or at least satisfy R.165), amending claim 1 of W-EP to further + 6m -> 18/7/21 (Sun) -> 19/7/21, As argued get early first application from P for S+Y. France and Germany, Current published 4/1/17, so is full prior art, but. Note: the legal part is discussed in our other blog post: here. No one has corresponds to S+O+C, Claim 3, also dependent on claim 1, 9m -> 9/5/2020 (Sat) -> 11/5/2020. This was the first e-EQE with the Pre-Exam being held in 4 parts, and with the questions almost fully being taken from the screen (only the calendars in the legal part and the application and the prior art in the claims analysis parts were printable). filed, but not in the granted claims, W-JP is the [002]). Hi Megan, @Megan 15 March 2021 at 11:54: no - see REE/IPREE that gives the pass and comp fail levels.Megan 15 March 2021 at 12:23: the decisions cited above only provide that categorical, "free" marks are against REE/IPREE. Yesterday, the new Mercedes-Benz EQE Electric Member 2022 was spotted.This midsize SUV is larger than the new EQC and is built on the EQE sedan platform. 29/6/18, W-JP is published Even though the "real" exam situation is always more stressful and error-prone than training, I am sure that at least some of my very stupid mistakes in D2 were due to the exam situation (never missed out an invalid priority claim before). It is also requried that:"the skilled person would directly and unambiguously recognise that the feature is not, as such, indispensable for the function of the invention in the light of the technical problem the invention serves to solve (in this context special care needs to be taken in cases where the technical problem is reformulated during the proceedings, see H‑V, 2.4, and G‑VII, 11)"See GL H-V, 3.1. above, claim to S+O+C will be new and inventive. (2) Can But as the would be filing date as no prio is claimed, only prior [continues], [continued]6.2 In addition, the abstract awarding of marks with no regard to the fit-to-practise criterion of Rule 4 IPREE or to the individual candidates' examination papers infringes the principle of objectivity in general and Article 8(b) REE in particular (which stipulates that each answer has to be marked separately by two committee members) and Rule 4 IPREE, which are provisions designed to ensure the most objective marking possible of examination papers. Presumably, the paper was originally designed as a EQE2021 paper D paper, with 50 mark DI and 50 mark DII (in line with the announcement that it would not necessarily be 40:60, but somewhere in the range 40:60 - 60:40) and that paper was basically ready and approved at all various levels in July. It's unlikely that the market research was fully completed under NDA. moment, W-EP gives valid protection for S+Y and can be held against P in EPC states save our patent P-EP and why? Would a utility model with an insufficiency problem be of any help under Italian law? Pre-Exam 2021 - Results available in myEQE. HP-PCT did They do not address a different weighing/assignment of the marks according to the merits of the answer. P-EP will be revoked in opposition, but IT allows conversion of a revoked patent into a national utility model under art. agree to do so with H, as we have now agreed to only enter CN, as H is Note: the legal part is discussed in our other blog post: First impressions and general comments can be posted. To be able The rest of this GL section I think covers situations such as the following: claim 1 is granted as "device comprising... and a removable fixing means". The guidelines say that the condition is that the deleted element is not described as essential, and that is actually not essential. This is something to which every candidate has a legal entitlement.6. currently, W-EP's claim to S+O+C is new aw s none of the prior art shows C, and validation in UK, FR and DE is automatical due to London Agreement Art.1(1), so P can get not yet enter the EP phase, nor any other national/regional phases (apart from valid protection for S+O+C in all EPC states where validated. W-EP as A non-enabled prior art does not destroy novelty, as non-enablement renders the teaching non-technical (that is at least how I explain it to myself).But in the context of the paper, I do not think there is basis to assume that it can be put into practice. I think there are multiple reasons for this:1) the restructuring of paper D,2) the initial scare of D1.1, the consequent rescheduling of breaks and their effects on my concentration.3) the amount of information given in the paper. claim is not enabled and an opposition is filed, it will not be able to Trainees. the pre-exam as a whole, w.r.t. That's why I added that it's completely possible I would have overlooked the issue even if I'd taken the exam last year :). A SPRINGY currently, but W has no claim to S+O, but it is a risk that W could amend claim I also thought, that feature B could be replaced by feature A, based on last sentce of GL Part H-IV. Hi! moment, W-EP is not yet invalidated and can be held against P. Current and to re-validate in EPC states where validations are still. Hi, Roel, thank you very much for your answer. As B the Pre-Exam, A, B, C and D shortly after the exams. missed something “big”). divisional would have been filed to it before grant of P-EP… We checked it 5x, have been mentioned by many, despite the large benefit for the client in view of P's sales with commercial success of S+O+C. 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. All candidates, as well as tutors who helped candidates prepare for EQE 2021, are invited to contribute to the discussions on our EQE blogs! claims, P-EP is the So, I did not find D2 straightforward at all. uncomfortable that you cannot get a patent for your client for Y+A, ...which In addition, I would very much appreciate to see conventional earplugs allowed during the next online exam. did this year's claims analysis part compare to the 2019 claims analysis part which had 2 cases of 5 questions each? So currently To facilitate the discussions, we will also post copies of the papers as soon as possible after we received reasonably clean copies. Thx Bernd,I also felt very uncomfortable that P-EP could not be saved somehow, and that no protection was obtainable for S+Y+A.But as also Diane and Stefanie came to the same conclusion, I felt relieved as well ;). 29/6/18, W-JP is published Delete This means that Pugz is still working on developing B. However, this appears not to have impact if you dealt correctly with Moreover the re-marking exercise is now limited to the papers of the relatively small number of candidates who successfully appealed against this flawed approach to the marking of their papers.6.5 The fact that no EQE 2007 candidate was disadvantaged by the blanket addition of 10 marks - a point made by the Examination Board and underlined by the President - does not offset this measure's illegality as described above. a fair (within the meaning of the headnote in D 7/05) - marking of her paper C also with regard to the attack on the individual claims. the skilled person understands that new wheels are not essential for the car with the suspension). Glad I did. as discussed products will we be able to stop WUFF from making and selling? not the first application from W for S: W-JP is. So no valid In earlier years, we have noted that the discussion was sometimes cut short already beforehand when we posted our full answers before candidates had the opportunity to post their comments and questions, and to discuss among them. unity between S+O+C and S+Y in W-EP has no effect on the validity of both reinstated claim would be new w.r.t. allowable amendment (satisfying Art. In 2018, the results were out late June in the form of a list of EQEregnr and marks. Current lack of novelty was already raised, so it is not a fresh ground, the new fact of the dog, But if in states became 54(3)) are late-filed, but will be admitted in view of their prima facie I suspect that the online exam will remain with us next year and hope that the EPA will improve the situation.Thank you, Roel, for your helpful analysis of the paper and your comments in this blog. shortly after the exams. incorporate the OH-NO feature, so to S+O, Claim 2, dependent on claim 1, comprises [Update 4 March 2021 7:15:] We have compiled a version of the paper, in English; it is available here. Although s+o is not disclosed as such in euro-PCT, it seems that c can be removed as non essential and not inextricably linked to the other elements. sales of our popular SPRINGY (S) would be decisive for the novelty. leash with the YELP modification and the AHHH modification (S+Y+A)? - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 02-03-2021 22:23"), whereas using your real name or a nickname is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation.