Mock 2's Paper A (3 Feb 2021)

"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, 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.

The epi Mock 2 Paper A is based on Paper A (CHEM) 2010with:

(i)   a few paragraphs omitted, 
(ii)  essential features expressed more explicitly,
(iii) chemical formulas spelled out.

The epi version of the paper (amended compared to the original) and the epi Compendium can be found on the epi website: here.


Addition (03-FEB-21, 4.40 PM; JK): some of you will have noticed that you should rapidly get rid of your persistent ALT-TAB habits. Hit it twice and you will be expelled from Lockdown.

Key combinations that you can safely use are CTRL-A, B, C, F, I, U, V, X, Y, Z and CTRL-SHIFT-V.
CTRL-SHIFT-V is very useful for pasting text copied from the letter/prior art PDFs without the formatting of the PDFs (such as hard line breaks).

General tips:
  • You can open multiple tabs with the paper (Assignment), so this may help in simultaneously navigating within different sections, e.g., tab-1: clients letter, tab-2: D1, tab-3: D2
  • Use a small size font for typing in your answer, this helps in keeping an organized view in the editor
  • By using the various "header" styles of the editor, a table of contents is automatically created; however, it seems that jumping between various sections created by these headers does not work for everyone
  • Don't waste time on building an overview of all features - effects - fallback positions in the editor. We still recommend organizing all information from the client's letter and the prior art on paper - as you would have done for the all-paper exam. The search option within the PDF browser may facilitate checking for features  - including any indications of essential features ("must", "essential", "required" etc.) and advantages.

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

We allow you to post your comments anonymously, but it is recommended and appreciated if you identify yourself using your true name or a nick name - that makes communication much more pleasant and efficient than talking to "Anonymous 19 January 2021 22:23" and alike. 
Please refer to the "Problems with commenting" link on the top right of this blog page if you have problems with commenting (which may occur due to security settings, cookies, etc, esp when using Captcha with anonymous posts).

Comments

  1. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to enter the flow.
    Firstly, uploading the photo did not progress (0%). Does anybody has an idea what to do in this situation. In the end I skipped this step.

    Secondly, the provide password "abc" didn't work. Probably, I had trouble with the first quotation mark, because I work with a keyboard for german language resulting in typing the first quotation mark on the bottom. When figuring out that this might have been the problem the 15min grace period passed. Hopefully, for the real exam the password is more suitable. I assume copy and paste from the e-mail does not work, because everything is closed before entering teh flow and thus copied items are gone - or am I wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The quotation mark is not part of the password, it should be only abc.

      Delete
    2. I used the same password but without quotation marks, i.e. just abc.

      Delete
    3. It was the same password as for Mock 1. You can try it again there.
      As long as you do not hand-in your answer to Mock 1, you can continue to practice with Mock 1 until late Feb.

      Delete
  2. Additionally, how to get in contact with zendesk, when not being able to enter the (Mock)e-EQE? I already activated the link sent out last week and created the respective password. Is there any step-by-step instruction (in simple words) available besides the 'helpful' tips for candidates etc.?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kicked out again because of ALT-TAB despite my best efforts not to use it ... It seems that when you are concentrated you forget about silly requirements ....

    ReplyDelete
  4. I left the exam 2 hours early, as it was too chemical. I think as a mechanical engineer, I would rather spend my time doing a paper which was actually relevant.
    System worked fine though.
    AB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed this was a very chemical exam. Not representative of modern A exams probably. Seems based on the 2010 chemical paper.

      Delete
  5. Kicked out because of mouse clicks? Must have been alt-tab, I was not able to reach anyone with zendesk, this is terrible. Lets pray, that the exam will not be like this. I am so used to alt-tab, that I cannot avoid doing it... I will certainly get kicked out of the main exam.
    The exam itself seems to be based on Chemistry Paper A 2010...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct, the Mock paper was based on A Chem 2010, with
      (i) a few paragraphs omitted
      (ii) essential features expressed more explicitly
      (iii) chemical formulas spelled out

      Regarding the subject matter: The main purpose of Mock 2 is to work with the platform under exam-like conditions, not to give a representative picture of what the e-EQE paper may look like as to the subject-matter tested.

      Regarding the ALT-TAB: it would appear that when hitting ALT-TAB for the 1st time, you get a warning rather than getting kicked out. Second time = exit from Lockdown Browser. Time to get rid of some persistent habits.

      Delete
    2. After the exam, I checked the FAQ on information about mouse clicks and Alt-Tab.

      Alt-Tab problem seems to have popped up during Mock 2: the FAQ is just updated with the following:

      Updated 02/2021 – Am I allowed to use keyboard shortcuts, special keys combinations, such as Alt+Tab, and touchpad gestures in the LockDown browser?

      You are not allowed to use shortcuts (Alt+Tab or the like), key combinations and touchpad gestures in the LockDown browser. This is seen as an unauthorised action and will result in the LockDown browser to stop your examination.

      BUT:

      Copy-Paste can only be done using Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V or Ctrl-Shift-V!

      Delete
    3. I feel it is a little insulting to tell people to "get rid of persistent habits" with respect to ALT+TAB. It is a useful keyboard shortcut, and one which hugely increases productivity. So many shortcuts are entirely muscle memory for candidates now, and we absolutely should not have to unlearn such things simply because of an idiosyncrasy of Wiseflow - especially when candidates will often be too focused on completing the actual exam to remember not to do a shortcut that is habit due to how valuable it is.

      Obviously the ALT+TAB feature can be disabled, as using this shortcut in Mock 1 doesn't cause issues - so why must the EQE secretariat insist on having this disruptive feature enabled in the exams. The repeated responses of "it is what candidates say they want" is just rude now, and it is clear that the EQE secretariat are unwilling to accept any fault for this broken and clunky system they have chosen to poorly implement.

      Delete
    4. Hi, is the glass composition really a composition in the sense of Art. 54(4). As they are talking about absorption and degradation of particles, I would rather argue it is a medical device
      T1758/15 Biodegradability too was a typical device feature, as could be seen for example in the case of bioresorbable sutures. If these effects were to be taken into account as prophylactic effects of the material, indirect second medical use protection of any device would be possible, contrary to the wording of the EPC.) Any thoughts on that? Best regards

      Delete
  6. If you are kicked of (because of alt+tab, what a pity), you can come back with the supervisor password: xyz

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can we use the supervisor password? I could not find any place to input such password after kicked out.

      Delete
  7. Fairly easy exam, system worked fine, subject matter perfectly accessible for non-chemists. Could do with the cut-and-paste function being improved though - currently, it keeps adding returns at random.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you use CTRL-SHIFT-V for pasting rather than CTRL-V, the majority of the hard returns are gone (you might need to add some additional spaces between words)

      Delete
    2. Fairly easy? With so many independent claims? Or at least different claimed titles (fibre, fibre bundle, powder, paste, medical prosthesis, process for making a prosthesis, glass composition for use in therapy, glass composition for use in a method of regenerating bone tissue)? It was clear to me I needed various types, but how to do that in an efficient way? Not very common for a non-chemist. :(

      Delete
    3. Don't get too distracted by the medical use claims, this seems to be an accidental legacy of an old paper. However, your observation that you should claim many types/categories is correct. This is how "new style" Paper A works, and the letter will provide plenty of pointers towards the intended types. Generally, the main claim should be drawn to the smallest entity (if the main invention is an entity), and then additional (quasi-)independent claims should be drawn to larger objects encompassing this entity wherever pointers are provided. So in this case fiber -> bundle/net/gauze + powder -> paste containing powder -> prosthesis coated with powder

      Delete
    4. Strongly disagree that the subject-matter was accessible for non-chemists. It is the equivalent as if you had asked a chemist to write a computer invention claim - vastly unfair and in no way "accessible to all" as claimed by the EPO when the two paper A versions were combined.
      The multiple independent claims was again entirely against best practice, and against what is taught by Delta / JDD / CEIPI / EPI / EPO-Academy courses. So many independent claims is ridiculous, and even in this exam likely non-unitary (i.e. claim to fibre did not share special technical features with the first medical use claim) - given the unpredictability of mark schemes for the EQE, the 'acceptable' answer today could equally be a very lowly marked fail, depending on the specific mood of whoever devised the mark scheme / example answer.

      Delete
  8. For some reason, the assignment would not open in English (only in German). I know this problem has occured before in the flows, and I always select the paper language before opening the flow to fix it. But this solution did not fix the problem. I had to view my exam in English in a separate tab and NOT side to side. This was an issue that I did not have on Mock 1.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The chemistry was a composition or matter, but that was really about as far as the chemistry went. That means that a quick brushup before the real exam will put someone in good stead.

    For me, the tricky part of this was navigating the exceptions of A53 for surgery or treatment. I didn't do well on that part :(

    Was another Alt-Tab victim. Luckily, it was after I had done all of my notes from the description and was sitting down to read the prior art. I wasted a lot of time on this (probably 30+ minutes) on trying to figure out how not to capture the A53 exceptions and make the client happy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The prior art documents were not available 10 min before the paper. I was expecting to be on time. Now it was two pages, but if in the real exam there will be more and if we need to take photo, more time should be given. Otherwise it will be very stressful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can confirm this. I had access to the prior art around 6 to 7 minutes before start. After printing, taking photo etc. I had just 3 minutes on the countdown clock.

      Delete
    2. What is the use of taking photo? And is it allowed to?

      Delete
    3. It is so that they can match the photo with the photo you provided last week, and so that the AI can verify the person they are watching is the person who registered with their ID

      Delete
  11. Could someone kindly let me know, why the following independent claim is not suitable?

    1. A glass composition having Potassium oxide 4-9% wt for use as a bioactive glass.

    In my understanding, use of such glass composition has not been known by either of D1 or D2.

    Further, in my thought, defining the other material (e.g. Sand, Phosphorus Oxide...) is not necessary, since, by mentioning "glass composition" in the preamble, the skilled person is enabled to gain the composition, in view of the known glass compositions in D1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should know that "for use as a bioactive glass" is not a hard limitation on the claim - it merely means "suitable for use as...". See GL F-IV 4.13.1. Since glass compositions with various amounts of potassium oxide are already disclosed in D2, and since we know that these are also *suitable* for use as a bioactive glass, the phrase "for use as a bioactive glass" does not confer novelty.

      Regarding your second point: we are claiming a glass composition that deviates from just a "glass composition" by the replacement of part of the sodium oxide (up to 30 wt% in known glass) with at least 2 wt% potassium oxide. This needs to be clarified in the claim by defining the amount of sodium oxide to be at most 28 wt%. Thus, you cannot get away with *not* defining the other components.

      Delete
    2. How do you know that it is not suitable? Has someone the solution?

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. You can find the model solution here https://www.epi-learning.org/course/view.php?id=18

      Delete
    5. D2 discloses the same compositions as the invention. However, D2 does not mention that these compositions can be formed into fibres or suggest any uses for the glass. Thus, this is what we still can (and should) claim. We know that the compositions of D2 are also *suitable* for use as a bioactive glass - inherently, because that is (part of) the invention as expressed in the client's letter. The wording "(suitable)for use as a bioactive glass" does not render the glass novel.

      Delete
    6. I have the similar question. As a person from mechanical world, I am wondering why "a glass composition for use as a bioactive material for prosthesic implant" is not novel as a medical use?

      Delete
    7. D2 discloses the exact same compositions as the examples in the client's letter, so to get novelty / inventive step, you need to provide in the claim something beyond the composition itself.
      D1/D2 do not mention glass fibres at all. On the contrary, all the embodiments of the client's letter comprise glass fibres in combination with a specific composition / maximum diameter and the technical effects are always related to the size of the fibres or of the particles. So that's a big hint towards the expected claim.
      As a rule of thumb, it's unlikely than any expected main claim holds in one line

      Delete
    8. First of all: don't get too distressed by this ancient example exam with - coincidentally - a medical usage claim. This mock exam was NOT made by the present exam committee.

      However, to clarify your issue:
      "a glass composition for use as a bioactive material for prosthesic implant" is NOT a proper formulation of a medical use claim. In order to qualify as a medical use claim (at least for the purpose of he exam) it should be formulated as "for use in a *method* of regenerating bone tissue" (i.e., define the therapeutic method).

      "for use as a bioactive material for prosthesic implant" will be interpreted as a product *suitable as bioactive material suitable for a prosthetic implant", i,e. not hard-limited by the medical use.

      Delete
    9. Dear Jessica,

      Your explanation in the substance or composition for use a medical method clarified my misunderstanding on those.

      Thank you very much!

      Delete
  12. If composition/medical use claims are fair game, are computer implemented invention claims also possible? I don't think it's reasonable to set papers that some candidates will have significant advantages in purely by way of day-to-day experience and familiarity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If B is computer implemented, I will not be surprised. I am guessing that or another composition of matter set like we got in D.

      Delete
    2. The main purpose of Mock 2 is to work with the platform in exam like conditions, not to give a representative picture of what the e-EQE paper may look like as to the subject-matter tested. It seems that this paper was selected because of the variety of claim categories (small composition, larger product comprising the composition, composition in different morphologies, process of preparing) that could be used (and associated dependent claims), not so much to frighten candidates with highly field-specific requirements.

      Delete
    3. I believe that you are right Jessica. We are just ready to spook easily. My money is still on another composition claim for B tomorrow though :)

      Delete
  13. it is understood that the mock paper and the model solution to the mock paper are provided for exercise with the new system. I found quite a few points provided in the model solution are open to discussion:
    1. the limitation of the glass fibre claim w/o the lower limit of the diameter below 10 micrometer: as the inventor cannot draw fibres with diameters below 10 micrometer, so they are not able to test it and so it is not certain that the fibres with diameters below 10 micrometer will work. so there is no information disclosed in the letter saying that fibres below that limit also works and enables...
    2). the independent claim on medical prothesis: the claim can be broader as: medical prosthesis coated with a glass composition comprising....potassium oxide.. Such claim is also novel and inventive. so the model claim 8 is unnecessarily limited to protheses coated with powder...
    3). what about a claim on fabrics made of the fibres...

    lots can be subject to discussion.... and I hope the paper in the real exam will be more logic and coherent.
    Petre

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi Jessica, I have a question on the claim 1. I have claim a glass compound comprising : sand, ... potassium.. characterized in that the glass is on the form of a fiber of diam max 50µm. Is this forumulation equivalent to the model solution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would think so, except possibly for the "below 50 μm is essential", so 50 microns should actually not be included.

      Delete
    2. I agree. The 50 μm max only is essential for bone formation.

      But it is not indicated to be essential for other applications.

      "[019] The small diameter of the filaments or fibres of below 50 μm is essential to ensure that they are completely absorbed. This means they are completely replaced by bone tissue."

      Delete
  15. I caught all the important claims, but I also included a method claim for making the glass fibres. Why is there no method claim in the solution? It seems that the product claim is the best and broadest coverage, but the method claim can also be useful in stopping others from making the glass fibres, right?

    Also, does it really matter whether you claim a "glass fibre" or "glass fibres"? I highly doubt a single fibre can be formed without special machinery, and I think the who point of the invention is to interest several fibres into something. Any clarity on this? The disclosure seemed to discuss fibres, and not a single fibre.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your approach, i.e. to always try to cover the main product also with a method of manufacturing claim (referring back to the product). It would appear however that this paper did not provide a lot of material (i.e. steps) to put in such a method claim, other than "drawing" fibres from the composition, so that might explain the absence.

      The general rule is to claim the smallest entity possible that still is N + I and has all the essential features, so going by that approach "fibre" is better. For this particular paper "fibres" would not make any difference I would say.

      Delete
    2. Dear Gregrory,

      A single fibre CAN be formed without special machinery:

      [026]: "Machines for drawing such fibres are very well known and can be
      bought commercially. They only need to be suitable for drawing fibres with the small diameters required. This can be seen from the specification of the machine."

      Delete
  16. Why the independent claim directly goes to fibres? A protection scope of a glass composition in a first medical use is not broader than just fibres?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because D1 already shows a medical uses of glass compositions.

      I did add a claim to:
      "a glass composition for use in a method of treatment by therapy or surgery of the human or animal body, the glass composition comprising potassium oxide below 9 weight%" based on [015]

      and a dependent claim where the method was limited to "the glass composition being provided in a fibre and the potassiu oxide being in a range of 2 to 9%" based on [017].

      Delete
    2. But D1 doesn't disclose the first medical use of the composition with postssium(po). D2 discloses composition with po. Independent claim can direct to composition with po in first medical use, isn't it?

      Delete
  17. Hi everyone. Two comments:
    1. I have lost access to my printers once I accessed the browser and could not print D1/D2. Luckily as already said above these were only 1 page each but in the future I must get this issue sorted out. Any comments?

    2. The client's letter mentioned something like they were "not interested in paying claims fees". Was this a pointer to having more than 15 claims? I actually thought of 20 claims or so but then it just felt stupid and reduced it to 16.. In any case, what do you think was the intention behind that phrase?

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 15 claims it is. Anything beyond that number will not be marked.

      Delete
  18. Hi all, I can`t download my own submitted answer. Anybody who has the same problem?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess we need to wait a bit. Yesterday I could only download the three D parts at the end of the day, also the first parts that were finished before lunch.

      Hope we can download our answer to the first part of C in the lunch break, so we can have it when doing the second part as indicated in the FAQ.

      Delete
    2. I can download your answer now!

      Delete
    3. I can download my answer now! (Not yours)

      Delete
  19. Hi all, why does the epi solution consider most of the claims independent although they in fact comprise all features of claim 1 and the category does not change? Fibre bundle, consisting of .. according to claim 1; 3. Powder, obtainable..chopping fibres of claim 1 (ok product-by-process, but still a product, so no change of category). Same for claims 4 and 5. For the claims itself it does not really matter, but for writing the description. And how do two use claims 7 and 8 comply with R. 43(2) EPC? None of the exceptions apply. I`m a bit puzzled.. any comments? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that they are not independent. Guidelines F-IV, 3.4 and 3.5.

      But it does not matter.

      They anyhow have unity. And if you consider them multiple independent claims, they will be allowed in view of the exceptions given in Rule 43(2).

      7 and 8 are allowed as a plurality of interrelated products, I think. I am not sure. Anyhow, pharmacists and other chemists do this type of multiple independent claims all the time.

      Delete
    2. You are right: according to the definition of R. 43(4) claims 2-5 are actually dependent claims. However, because they do provide additional scope for the client, they should be claimed explicitly in Paper A and attract more marks than "standard" dependent claims. For this reason, they are always discussed in the Compendium as (quasi)independent claims.

      Claims 7 and 8 are textbook examples of a first (for use in medicine, no further specification) and a second (specific treatment) medical use claims. Such claims are generally considered to have unity (GL G-VI 7.1) and therefore not violate R. 43(2).

      Delete
    3. Claims can violate R.43(2) while there is unity.

      Unity requires special technical feature.
      If all independent claims have that same STF, but also all have an additional feature, different for each claim, they violate 43(2).

      Only prior art: composition comprising Fe
      Claim 1: composition comprising Fe, Au and Ag
      Claim 2: composition comprising Fe, Au and Al
      Claim 3: composition comprising Fe, Au and Cu

      Unity if composition comprising Fe and Au is new and inventive (common matter; STF).
      But risk of violating 43(2) as they all have a different third metal: need to check whether exceptions apply.

      Delete
    4. Dear Jessica, thank you for your reply, I will check first and second medical use again. With regard to claims 2-5, would you recommend to mention them in the introductory part of the description? In your methodology course, you recommend to mention only independent claims and how they solve the technical problem. So I would only mention the "real" independent claims as invention and explain then how they solve the problem. Thanks again.

      Delete
    5. Hi Mike, yes, I wanted to add that to my previous response: also discuss the quasi-independent claims in your introduction to the description. So, when your main claim is a bread improver, and you claim (1) the bread improver and (2) a bread comprising the bread improver of the preceding claims, discuss them both in your summary - with likely more emphasis on the bread improver and its advantages.

      Delete
    6. The "Examiner" is of course right in his/her example above. In that case, the Ag, Al, Cu options can most likely be covered as dependent claims depending on a single Fe + Au claim.

      As first and second medical use claims cannot easily be re-formulated as single claim with dependent subject matter (even though they are unitary), they may be drafted as two independent claims without contravening R. 43(2).

      Delete
  20. In the solution, you wrote including a lower limit of 10 μm for the fibres was seen as an unnecessary limitation because it is not presented as essential and it seems to be a constraint imposed by the use of the specific machine for drawing fibres. However, what about enablement? If the applicant does not provide a way of getting to 10 μm then he cannot claim it (ARt. 83). In Paper A, we are not supposed to assume any knowledge about the art and it was not disclosed that it was possible to cut to 10 μm. Of course, this is just 2 marks, but I am curious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you. If it says that it cannot go below 2um then why would you draft something that means the scope is below 2um.


      There should be no prior knowledge involve so I think the mark scheme needs to update. It needs to be 10 to 50 um in diameter based on the disclosure of the paper.

      Delete
    2. I had the lower limit in for enablement reasons too.

      But as a dependent claim.

      I had doubt whether it was really needed in view of,
      on one hand:

      "AT PRESENT, it is not technically possible to cut fibres to a length shorter than 10 μm." in [016] and "Our fibre-drawing machine cannot draw fibres with a diameter below 10 μm" in [019],

      but on the other hand:

      [026] "Machines for drawing such fibres are very well known and can be
      bought commercially. They only need to be suitable for drawing fibres with the small diameters required. This can be seen from the specification of the machine. In our tests we have used a Glassfiber2000®. Glassfiber2000® cannot draw fibres with diameters below 10 μm."
      The last two sentences suggest that:
      - it would not be an undue burden for the skilled person to find machines, and that the choice of machines would provide for the possibilities of diamater - as long as there is no diamater claiemd smaller than 10, it may be OK';
      - our machine cannot go below 10, but possibly others can.

      Chemists know well how to deal with enablement in the exam. For mechanics, never an issue, so unknown grounds.

      Delete
    3. The more I think about it, the more the solution is wrong. 10 micrometers should be in there. We are supposed to use no CGK on paper A. There is no evidence that below 10 micrometers is possible, thus, you can't claim below that. In an opposition, this would be an effective argument. Furthermore, 10 micrometers is not very limiting as a lower limit given the scope of the invention.

      Delete
    4. My point is: as the inventor cannot get fibres below 10 micrometer, so no test has been done with fibres below 10 micrometer - thus no information whether the fibres below 10 micrometers is also enabling the effect...

      Delete
    5. The 10 micrometer issue appears twice: for the diameter of the fibre and for the length of the cut fibre.
      Paper is clear that a diameter below 10 is technically possible, but not with the Glassfiber2000 machine available to applicant.
      --> for diameter, limiting to higher than 10 micrometer is an unnecessary limitation (but still below 50). I still had it in an independent claim, just in case.
      Paper is also clear that a length of the particle below 10 micrometer is not technically possible and would be insufficiently disclosed.[016]

      Delete
    6. I don't think this paper was NOT entirely clear about essential and optional features. There are some contradictory statements throughout the client letter like the example above. It is clear that this paper expected some prior knowledge.

      Delete
    7. It has never been "our" solution. Regardless, some guidance:

      For the fiber as such: the only (arguably) essential limitation is w.r.t. the diameter < 50 microns. Why? See [019:] a diameter of the filaments or fibres of below 50 μm is essential to ensure that they are completely absorbed. Thus, this essential feature reads directly on the claimed invention, i.e. bone tissue formation: it essential for obtaining the effect of full replacement with bone tissue.

      However, in view of the client's wish to also protect products outside the bioactive field. Also claims without the 50 microns upper limit (so, without any diameter limitation) could get full marks.

      Why not claiming the lower limit of 10 microns for the fiber diameter? According to [019], ”*our* fibre-drawing machine cannot draw fibres with a diameter below 10 μm”; thus, this is merely a technical limitation imposed by the availability of only one type of machine to the client (confirmed by [026]), by no means a limitation that cannot be overcome. Par. [026] in fact nicely enables any smaller-diameter fibres: “Machines for drawing such fibres are very well known and can be bought commercially. They only need to be suitable for drawing fibres with the small diameters required”. Thus, there is no indication that (i) smaller diameters can *generally* not be made and (ii) that they do not have any technical effect below 10 microns.
      [See also, for example, A 2018: irradiation with a continuous-wave laser is slow and not economical’ a pulsed laser works much faster. However, the technical effect as such is still obtained with the continuous-wave laser, albeit slower; accordingly, a pulsed laser was *not* considered essential and the slow option should not be excluded.]

      For the fibre, no length limitations are presented as being essential. The cutting only applies on the powders made from the fibers (cf. [016])

      For the powder: “powders can be made by cutting the fibres into lengths of at most 100 μm. *At present*, it is not technically possible to cut fibres to a length shorter than 10 μm” (cf. [016]). This is again a surmountable obstacle w.r.t. the lower limit, so not defining any essential feature for enablement. However, in order to somehow support the concept of “powder”, both 10-100 microns or just “at most 100 microns” (only an upper limit) attracted full marks.

      Delete
    8. Jessica:
      I see the sentence which clarifies the fiber of lower than 10 micrometer diameter "can" be produced, but I do NOT read from it that that kind of fiber is enabling the same effect as the inventor has not tested it (and no other sentence in the letter hint at that either)-- because it is not available to them with their machine...
      thanks.
      Jeb

      Delete
    9. It is clarified in the letter that/how the product can be made AND it is indicated when it does NO longer have the intended effect: when the diameter is too large (i.e., > 50 microns). What else do you need?

      Only when it is made explicit that a too small diameter would dis-able the product (e.g., "a diameter below 10 microns results in product that lacks stability and can therefore not be used") you should start taking the lower limit seriously, too. (see e.g. A 2017)

      Delete
  21. Since D1 and D2 were not available for me 3 minutes before the start, I entered the flow without waiting anymore. I thought that D1 and D2 will not be available for printing at all. Then, I exit the flow because I found that they just become available for printing. Then, I couldn't re-enter the flow. At all.
    Cristina

    ReplyDelete
  22. I don't understand why 10 to 100 um in length is not in claim 1 as it says in the paper that it is an essential feature for the powder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because it's essential for the powder, not the fiber, imo.

      Delete
    2. They are only described as essential for bone formation, in [019], not for other uses.

      Delete
    3. Ummm. I would say that 10 to 100 um would be considered essential although I understand why it is not included. Equally if it is added, it should be penalised. By looking at recent papers I would say that 10 to 100 um should be in claim 1 in the spirit of the newer papers.

      Delete
    4. It should not be penalised I meant.

      Delete
    5. I would agree with this. In the spirit of the newer papers I did add in the 10 to 100 um in length limitation into claim 1 as I thought this enables the correct fibres to be drawn to be uniformly sized. So I added this into independent claim and see this as an essential feature.

      It may be different back in 2010 but I do hope the EQE 2021 paper will be much more clearer than this paper. It assumes a lot of prior knowledge.

      Delete
    6. I had the 10 to 50 um diameter and 10 to 100 um in length in claim 1 as the client letter seems to indicate that these were features that are essential/sufficiency disclosure.

      I would hope future papers are much more clearer.

      Delete
  23. I don't deal with medical use claims or product by process claims so this paper completely threw me off. Any chance th EQEs is slightly fairer to both set of groups. I got no problems with the subject matter but drafting product by process claims and medical use claims is not my speciality and nor would do this in real life as I would kindly pass this onto my more competent life chemistry colleagues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As already stated a few times above: don't get hung up on the subject matter of this vintage (2010) chemistry paper. It was probably selected by the EPI (who do NOT make the exam) because of the variety of claim categories that could be drafted. Selecting more than one claim type/category is an important topic in new-style paper A.

      This does not necessarily imply that medical use claims are now suddenly part of Paper A - in that regard this Mock paper may not be very representative. You should know however when to use (or better: when NOT to use) product-by-process claims. Check GL F-IV 4.12.

      Delete
    2. I would feel more confortable spotting these type of claims in the amendment paper as a non chemist but asking to draft a set of product by process claims and new use claims is beyond what I and most mechanics do in real life really.

      Delete
    3. I suppose its OK to draft a product by process claim if it is made more obvious to a non chemist candidate. I didn't think this paper was a little muddle and unclear for most non chemist/bio candidates.

      Delete
    4. Typo error - I did think this paper was muddled and unclear to a non bio/chemist candidate

      Delete
  24. No use of Alt-Tab? Impossible to unlearn that, it is a habit that is so automated that it is not even under conscious control of my brain and central nervous system anymore!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. just remove the alt key from your keyboard before the exam :)

      Delete
  25. Claim 1: A glass fibre comprising .....(all compounds)".
    Claim 2: The glass fibre according to claim 1, having a diameter below 50um.
    Claim 3: The glass fibre according to claim 2, wherein the fibres are further arranged in the form of bundles of fibres or fabrics.

    Is this acceptable?

    Motivation for claim 1 was to provide maximum protection for glass fibres of any diameter. I considered that:
    - the essence of the invention is the replacement of sodium oxide by potassium oxide that allows the fibres to be drawn from that glass composition.
    - 50um diameter was essential only for providing bioacitivy. Therefore, I put that feature in dependent claim 2.
    For claim 3, I really struggled with the different claim object and then I was afraid of non compliance with R. 43(2). Then I decide to write claim 3 with a form dependent on claim 2.
    Then, I really struggled again discussion claim 1 over the prior art because my claim 1 does not solve the issue of biactivity.

    Any tips?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All acceptable claims, well done. See Compendium: "Claim not defining an upper diameter of the fibres could be defended in view of the client's wish to also protect products outside the bioactive field. Such a claim could, therefore, attract full marks. Also claims with an upper limit of 50 μm obtain full marks."

      "The glass fibre according to claim 2, wherein the fibres are arranged in the form of bundles of fibres or fabrics" is an OK alternative formulation - without the "further"

      Delete
  26. Not working with biology/medicine, ranges and product by process claims, this module has been quite challenging for me. Looking at p.40 of description I understood that the client wanted me to consider the limits of his experiments (composition 1-3), not the one of the prior art D1, and therefore I wrote claim 1 embracing that ranges. Furthermore, to make claim 1 novel over D2, I formulated it according to Art.54(4) EPC. Is that totally wrong? am I the only one being confused by paragraph 40? Many thanks!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment