Paper A e-EQE 2021: first impressions?
To all who sat the A-paper today:
What are your first impressions to this year's A-paper?
Any general or specific comments?
Surprising elements in the client's letter and the prior art?
Did you have enough time?
How many marks do you expect to have scored?
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score?
How did this year's paper compare to the papers of the last few years?
Similar difficulty level?
Could you find the wording for claim features in the clients letter and the prior art?
Was the subject-matter well understandable, for chemists as well as e/m candidates?
Multiple independent claims? Functional features?
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.
The core of our answers will be given as soon as possible in a separate blog post.
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 04-03-2021 23:24"), whereas using your real name or a nick nameis 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.
Please post your comments as to first impressions and general remarks to this blog.
Please post responses to our answer (as soon as available) to the separate blog post with our answer.
Thanks!
What are your first impressions to this year's A-paper?
Any general or specific comments?
Surprising elements in the client's letter and the prior art?
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?
(How) was it different due to the due of the LockDown Browser?
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?
Did you have enough time?
How many marks do you expect to have scored?
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score?
How did this year's paper compare to the papers of the last few years?
Similar difficulty level?
Could you find the wording for claim features in the clients letter and the prior art?
Was the subject-matter well understandable, for chemists as well as e/m candidates?
Multiple independent claims? Functional features?
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.
The core of our answers will be given as soon as possible in a separate blog post.
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 04-03-2021 23:24"), whereas using your real name or a nick nameis 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.
Please post your comments as to first impressions and general remarks to this blog.
Please post responses to our answer (as soon as available) to the separate blog post with our answer.
Thanks!
Update:
SHARE:
+1. 25 micrometer was essential for insulation.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree that the text around 25um was unclear in the paper. Would be devastated if candidates were to fail on the basis of this.
ReplyDeleteIt was uniform but also porous (paragraph 4) so it could be uniformly porous. I specified the columns were non granular then defined this in the description as excluding eg flattened grains. It was described that columns formed this way (method 1) had improved properties over the plasma method of D1.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with you except that the paper also said that 25um was preferred i.e. optional so that implies that it is not essential. V. confusing and you can see why the debate of 25um is continuing. Its not clear - the EPO could easily make this a bit clearer and candidates won't have a problem with this.
ReplyDeletei see, thanks everyone. so, from what i understand (if the bus embodiment is considered to be prior art) the following features would overcome it?
ReplyDeletesuperalloy substrate
a substrate suitable for engines at temperatures of at least 1600 dgerees
adhesion layer
is this correct?
so,
ReplyDeletesuperalloy substrate
substrate suitable for temps of 1600degrees
adhesion layer
is this correct?
I also did not limit to a superalloy. The claim was rendered novel and inventive by the thickness of the ceramic oxide layer in my opinion and the superalloy was only essential for components for use in engines exceeding 1600C. I thought it was reasonable to exclude superalloy so as not to unduly limit the scope of the claim. From what I recall the bus example was not public knowledge so it was not required to limit the claim with a view to making the claim novel over the bus.
ReplyDeleteStill need to overcome it because it can fall into the category of prior use
ReplyDeleteI realised that there is some big debate around whether to include 25um or not - given the confusion around the text. Is it worth notifying the EPO over this or will they already be monitoring these blogs.
ReplyDeleteit does seem strange that the 25um was described as optional so can it then be essential. normally, the EPO is quite clear on this otherwise, many candidates are going to fall under the cracks based on confusing language of the paper around this feature.
I can't remember the exact wording of the letter, but was it clear that the bus motor was even a public and enabled disclosure?
ReplyDeleteCannot agree enough around the 25um thickness and the confusion it has caused. A lesson that the EPO should be more clear on a distinguishing feature. Many candidates will suffer if this is the sole reason for failure. The text doesn't need to be this confusing as in real life, you really do have the option of submitting a claim with good dependent fall back position and then request to amend in writing or amend when R71(3) comes out.
ReplyDeletebut could constitute prior use probs
ReplyDeleteAdvantage of not having the adhesion layer was same lifespan with less weight. So I did not put the adhesion layer in claim 1, but in a dependent claim
ReplyDeleteAdvantage of not having an adhesion layer was same lifespan but lighter. So I did not add it to claim 1, but in an independent claim (advantage is extended lifespan over D1)
ReplyDeleteNot sure which anonymous you are... But the "for engines with a combustion section at a temperature at least 1600" should get you novelty over the bus. Aluminium clearly wouldn't be "suitable for" that type of engine. At least, that's what I'm hoping!
ReplyDeleteI wouldnt be too worried about novelty over the bus engine given you basicly dcefined that the substrate must be suitable for use in the engines >1600C.
ReplyDeleteFrom F-IV 4.13.1: "a known product which prima facie is the same as the substance or composition defined in the claim, but which is in a form which renders it unsuitable for the stated use, does not deprive the claim of novelty."
In other words I believe that anyone that defined the use of either the engine component as a whole or the use of the substrate (as you did) has novelty over the bus engine.
I also believe that it is debatable (that means "appealable") if the super alloy is essential since the introductory part of the letter only mentioned "super alloys are typically used in..". It doesnt say "necessarily used in..". There could be other materials that are "untypically" used. Though I agree that all embodiments spoke only about super alloys this is not a 0 marks claim as a whole if the material is only "a substrate".
I wouldnt be too worried about novelty over the bus engine given you basicly dcefined that the substrate must be suitable for use in the engines >1600C.
ReplyDeleteFrom F-IV 4.13.1: "a known product which prima facie is the same as the substance or composition defined in the claim, but which is in a form which renders it unsuitable for the stated use, does not deprive the claim of novelty."
In other words I believe that anyone that defined the use of either the engine component as a whole or the use of the substrate (as you did) has novelty over the bus engine.
I also believe that it is debatable (that means "appealable") if the super alloy is essential since the introductory part of the letter only mentioned "super alloys are typically used in..". It doesnt say "necessarily used in..". There could be other materials that are "untypically" used. Though I agree that all embodiments spoke only about super alloys this is not a 0 marks claim as a whole if the material is only "a substrate".
Bus motor was made of aluminium, I drafted claim 1 to a component... comprising a superalloy substrate
ReplyDeleteMaybe, I was imagining that the bus engine was being tested sitting on a bench in their factory/lab, rather than actually being driven around, but I can't recall the wording
ReplyDeleteI thought long about this, and eventually decided against in and made it my first dependent claim. Because it said something like it is preferable that the thickness is less than 2 millimeters to ensure the weight is kept low. I read this as even though such a thickness ensures the weight is low, it is not essential for having a low weight.
ReplyDeleteMich
I wouldnt be too worried about novelty over the bus engine given you basicly dcefined that the substrate must be suitable for use in the engines >1600C.
ReplyDeleteFrom F-IV 4.13.1: "a known product which prima facie is the same as the substance or composition defined in the claim, but which is in a form which renders it unsuitable for the stated use, does not deprive the claim of novelty."
In other words I believe that anyone that defined the use of either the engine component as a whole or the use of the substrate (as you did) has novelty over the bus engine.
I also believe that it is debatable (that means "appealable") if the super alloy is essential since the introductory part of the letter only mentioned "super alloys are typically used in..". It doesnt say "necessarily. There could be other materials that are "untypically" used. Though I agree that all embodiments spoke only about super alloys this is not a 0 marks claim as a whole if the material is only "a substrate".
I specified that the columnar microstructure comprises non-granular columns (14a, 14b, 14c) and spaces (15a, 15b) then defined non-granular in the description to exclude columns formed of flattened grains. The non-granular columns, i.e. the ones formed by the first method had improved lifespans versus the columns formed of flattened granules.
ReplyDeleteGiven the confusion around 25um, I think the EPO will need to look at it. The text (at least the EN version) did seem contradictory.
ReplyDeleteIn previous papers A, the distinguishing feature would never be described as an optional feature. It would be made much clearer I feel. The EPO shouldn't be misleading or deliberately tricking candidates with text of whether it is essential or not. It probably wasn't the intention by the Examiner to draft confusing text around 25um by stating it is preferred but there is alot riding on one distinguishing feature so I hope that they see this and account for it. If you have it in your claim set, I hope they would sympathise. It has been a difficult year, week (so far) and a little confusing paper A.
ReplyDeleteBased on other years, this paper is by far the most obscure and confusing to read. Like you said, normally the distinguishing feature would be much clearer as so many marks are riding on it. By making things unclear, many candidates may not make it based on unclear text/mis-interpret something that should be made absolutely clear.
DeleteI went for substantially perpendicular too, no angle. I don't think the angle is needed as novelty/inventiveness over D2 is provided by the >25 micrometre ceramic oxide layer (which I'm fairly sure was an essential feature)
ReplyDeleteHa, that's funny. It seems like everyone read that paragraph in a different way. I interpreted it as the employee/inventor experimenting on the invention BEFORE it was made accessible to the public. Wish I could re-read the paragraph now!
ReplyDeleteIt seems clear here that the debate around 25um is controversial. Many didn't put it in their independent claim because of the text in the client letter. Many did but weren't sure. It feels horrible that passing this paper is dependent on whether something is clear to you or not. In this case, I think it fairly easy to deduce that the client letter was unclear on the 25um thickness. Lets hope that not everything hinges on that feature only and that you won't be deducted significant amount of marks (or not many/no marks) by not including it in your independent claim.
ReplyDeleteHa, that's funny. It seems like everyone interpreted that paragraph in a different way. I read it as the employee/inventor experimenting with their new coating BEFORE it was made available to the public. Wish I could re-read that paragraph now!
ReplyDeleteFeel like I fail Paper A based on omitting 25um thickness in claim 1 :(
ReplyDeleteSo cruel if that's the case.
Hi Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI also spent way too much time thinking about the essentiality of the superalloy. In the end, I took it out at the last minute because the client also coats aluminium which is a metal, so not a superalloy (paragraph after the figure legends).
However, I had added that the metal oxide coating was at least 25 micrometers thick because from my reading, the thickness was essential to protect the superalloy from high temperatures. So, without the superalloy in there, I'm not sure how the thickness of the oxide layer stands...
Did anyone else consider defining ceramic oxide layer as being a metal oxide with melting temp above 100C in claim 1?
ReplyDeleteD1 states that everyone has a different definition of what ceramic oxide actually is, so I thought it could be an A84 because the term has no universal meaning, so it's unclear. In the end I just went with ceramic because it got a bit clunky, but wonder what others think.
AM
Above 1600⁰C
DeleteI had claim 1 with the 25 um thickness, as well as this exact definition of ceramic oxide having a melting temperature above 1600 degrees.
Delete/Kristian
In the spirit of previous Paper A, this paper doesn't seem to be the case.
ReplyDeleteYes, the 25um thickness text was confusing in the client letter and somewhat a little baffling that they want to provide 2 contradictory statements here. D2 is not entirely clear too as perpendicular, without importing any knowledge, would not cover 75-105c. I understand that in life you could use knowledge to say so otherwise but in EQE, you can't define a cow as a dairy animal (in Paper C 2018) without the text saying so what is the difference here. Aluminium is also define as a metal so they should have provided some sort of definition for substantially perpendicular. There are case law around this area.
So I hope these things are taken into account. This paper was quite confusing. Not a nice one.
Yep, its fair to say that this paper was not clear in some parts (annoyingly the most critical part). Would hope the EPO consider this.
DeleteI have to say that I spent a long time getting myself in a muddled with the 25um thickness feature too and got stuck.
I would think "substantially perpendicular" might either be unclear or too restrictive. I seem to remember that in the guidelines "substantially" is to be understood as "in the range of manufacturing tolerantes" if not defined otherwise in the patent text. Did you defined it in the description using the angle range?
ReplyDeletea confusing paper (as some of us have found below)
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think that 25 micrometer is not only essential, but required to overcome D1+D2. Otherwise the coating of 1 micrometer in D2 applied to the root of the turbine blade of D1 will fall into the claim's scope.
ReplyDeleteD1+D2 also takes away inventive step of the 1600° deg. limitation (assuming that the 1600° deg. restriction is included via a "for"-statement, ie "motor component for ...") because the turbine blade according to D1+D2 is suitable for use at 1600°.
Definitely some confusion of whether or not to put in 25um thickness in the independent claim. Still can't believe it has come to this ambiguity. A feature this crucial show not be ambiguous in the text of the client.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't ambiguous, it was a preferable feature. In paper A, you are tested on two things: making sure you include all the essential features of the invention and making sure your claim is novel with respect to the prior art, and arguably inventive.
DeleteJust because the 25um thickness was described as preferable does not mean it's ambiguous whether it should be in claim 1. If it is needed for novelty, it goes in claim 1.
I didn't feel the statements around 25um thickness was entirely clear either. I see what you mean but the text did also throw me off a bit and confused.
DeleteIf you put it as a dependent claim, I would think that the EPO will allow you to recover some marks from it.
it sure felt unclear and ambiguous to me.
DeleteI really think it was a deliberate choice to make the exam more difficult - it only seems to be conflicting at first, but becomes clear when taking into account the prior art+essential nature of 25um for effect as disclosed in the 2nd part of the sentence.
ReplyDeletemy first claim was directed to a "layer for an engine component" not "an engine component comprising a layer" ... I thought this is the smallest unit to claim ... And then a second independent claim directed to the engine component. Any thoughts?
ReplyDeleteFor me, it sounds a bit unclear to claim it as a layer for an engine component because it only becomes a layer when it is applied to the engine component and cannot exist as a layer independently of the engine component. Sorry to disagree but if I am right then it is just a clarity issues and these are not worth large amounts of marks.
DeleteEven if it is only preferable, it is clearly needed for novelty and inventive step arguments. Otherwise you can't get over D2 (without doing some other overly-limiting amendment). In paper A you need to do 2 things:
ReplyDelete1. Make the claim novel
2. Ensure the claim has all essential features.
Clearly if the combination of all essential features lacks novelty (it does in view of D2), then a non-essential, preferable feature such as the thickness is required in claim 1.
The problem with paper A is that you are reliant on 1 feature to show novelty. Based on last years paper - that is 42 marks gone + it has a knock on effect for your method of manufacturing claims. If a feature or the prior art is slightly unclear here (as seem to be the case here) then its a hard pill to swallow.
ReplyDeleteFor paper D, C and B - you are not entirely reliant on just one feature. If you make a mistake on the other papers, you are penalised but can still pick up sufficient marks on the other sections to pass (or at least enough to obtain compensatory pass mark).
This does seem very harsh if it is carried through to all independent claims. So if you exclude 25um thickness in your device claim, you get no marks in your method claims too - that is pretty harsh. In comparison for Paper B, you can still pick up marks in your novelty and inventive sections.
DeleteIf you have the 25um thickness in your dependent claims, and then your method claims refer to any one of the preceding claims, comprising steps of bla bla bla,
Deletethen my view is that you have the 25um thickness in your method (via according to any one of the preceding claims) and so your method claims should attract marks independently from product claim.
My guess is that you probably can recover some marks if your 25um thickness is in your dependent product claims. The client letter was less clear around the key features than in previous years in my view.
Yeah - method independent claims should be marked seperately from product claims and if your method independent claim based on any one of the preceding claims (device claim), then by definition the 25um thickness is in your independent method claim.
DeleteQuite a confusing paper I found.
ReplyDeleteIf the 25um unclear text was a deliberate thing to throw off candidates then they have succeeded. However, it is very unfair if this is the case as so many marks are awarded for claim 1 but unclear language/phrases/text intending to mislead etc... has a drastic consequence.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to get an opinion on this too. I didn't include the upper limit, but wonder if I should've.
ReplyDeleteIf I recall correctly, there was a sentence in the client's letter that indicated the thermal insulation of an engine component with the ceramic oxide coating having a columnar microstructure is 'surprisingly' at least the same as the thermal insulation of engine components with conventional ceramic oxide coatings. That would imply the upper limit was not strictly required for the engine components without an adhesion layer, as neither D1 nor D2 disclosed a ceramic oxide layer with a columnar microstructure would be suitable as a thermally insulating layer.
Does seem extremely harsh to fail candidates based on the 25um thickness. As long as its in the claim set, surely some marks can be credited towards it even if not full marks.
ReplyDeleteI think this is the issue here - some found it confusing (including me). I get your point but when you are confused in the heat of the moment, its hard to think logically. The way the text was worded around this feature was confusing to me. Its never been the case with other "key features" in the previous past papers. I don't know if this was intentional or not but I certainly did not see it as clear cut as you have.
ReplyDeleteI think there is less weight advantage even without the 2mm feature, since it was mentioned as an effect for the component without the adhesion layer. (I added the 25 micro but not the 2 mm)
ReplyDeleteHey guys,
ReplyDeleteSeems to me I had mostly the same problems like everyone else here. In my opinion you needed to have the following features in the first claim:
- superalloy (wasn't explicitly stated as being essential, but the problem being solved by the invention - reducing the effects of different expansion of substrate and coating on lifetime - was specific to the superalloy so there was no sufficient support for a broader claim; was really uncertain about it and changed it in the last 10 minutes though)
- thickness > 25um (novelty over D2, was also not explicitly stated as being essential but was required to solve the problem of the invention)
- columnar microstructure + angle (essential, I think pretty explicitly)
- spaces between the columns (essential, explicitly)
- ceramic oxide (very essential)
- engine component in engine at minimum working temperature > 1600°C (novelty over bus engine, which at least the person working on must have had access to, the engine thereby being accessible to one person in public thereby being state of art)
What I am really worried about though is, that I claimed a “coating for a superalloy of an engine component for an engine > 1600°Cblablabla ...” and no one else seems to have done that. I think that this should be just as novel and inventive as a coated engine component (the only thing I could think of would be the coating of the bus engine but that is clearly not suitable for a superalloy).
What do you think?
I would agree with this. I'm kicking myself for leaving out 25 um thickness from independent claim as this was stated as optional. Literally kicking myself.
DeleteJust hoping the product claim is not worth 45 marks and that it is more evenly spread out.
DeleteI also claimed a coating for an engine component and I agreee that this should also be novel and inventive as a coated engine component - however, I missed to specify "a superalloy of an engine component for an engine > 1600°C" because I didn't see the bus motor as prior art ... :-(
Deleteseemed doable, hint towards 25um being not essential was tricky, but I think it was needed in view of novelty over D2 and essential to provide sufficient heat protection of the superalloy substrate. so claim 1 boils down to component for engine with high T combustion zone, having superalloy substrate and 25um of ceramic oxide layer, characterized in that layer is microstructured with perpendicular columns. For the rest 2 independent method of manufacturing claims (electron beam evaporation with 920-1050 degrees regime and one generic coating with laser machining based microstructuring). I think for all claims adhesion layer was optional. My 5 cents.
ReplyDeleteif 25um thickness is left out of claim 1, do you think any marks can be gain from claim 1 at all.
DeleteI think it then lacks novelty in view of D2, I think the point is to put 25um in the preamble to make D1 cpa and demarcate it from D1 in that the ceramic oxide is microstructured. D2 can that way never be cpa as it does not provide a suitable (too thin) coating for a superalloy in a high T engine
ReplyDeleteI also thought 25 was essential, because even if it were described as preferred, indeed the paper said something like otherwise there is insufficient thermal isolation. The 2mm I really debated over since I also didn't have an adhesion layer and was basing the invention on the reduced weight. However from memory, the paper said something like the thickness is preferably less than 2mm, to ensure reduced weight. In the end I thought this meant that although the thickness being less than 2mm ensures reduced weight, that doesn't mean it is essential for reduced weight. But I was not at all sure and put the 2mm as my first dependent claim.
ReplyDeleteMich
Did anyone claim a coating rather than a component? :-(
ReplyDeleteyep! and I was quite convinced that this is what they expect :-( but now reading this blog I am worried...
DeleteI think the angle and 'perpendicular' word in D2 coupled with the slightly confusing text in the client letter around 25um thickness threw me off with this paper.
ReplyDelete
DeleteReading the letter online was tougher than I thought. Maybe this is where confusion has crept in.
I also thought above 25 was essential. Even if it were described as being preferable, indeed the paper said something like otherwise there is insufficient thermal isolation. However I debated hard over whether to include the 2mm, since I also had no adhesion layer and was basing the invention on the reduced weight. In the end I didn't include it, because by memory the paper said something like, a thickness of less than 2mm is preferred, to ensure reduced weight. I took this as although 2mm or less ensures reduced weight, it is not essential for reduced weight (especially as I think the thickness of the layers wasn't discussed in D1?). But I was not at all sure, and made the 2mm my first dependent claim.
ReplyDeleteMich
also thought above 25 was essential. Even if it were described as being preferable, indeed the paper said something like otherwise there's insufficient thermal isolation. However I debated hard over whether to include the 2mm, since I also had no adhesion layer and was basing the invention on the reduced weight. In the end I didn't include it, because by memory the paper said something like, a thickness of less than 2mm is preferred, to ensure reduced weight. I took this as although 2mm or less ensures reduced weight, it is not essential for it (especially as I think the thickness of the layers wasn't discussed in D1?). But I was not at all sure, and made the 2mm my first dependent claim.
ReplyDeleteMich
Some parts of the client letter were unclear to me, particularly around the 25um thickness.
ReplyDeleteI also thought above 25 was essential. Even if it were described as being preferable, indeed the paper said something like otherwise there's insufficient thermal isolation. However I debated hard over whether to include the 2mm, since I also had no adhesion layer and was basing the invention on the reduced weight. In the end I didn't include it, because by memory the paper said something like, a thickness of less than 2mm is preferred, to ensure reduced weight. I took this as although 2mm or less ensures reduced weight, it is not essential for it (especially as I think the thickness of the layers wasn't discussed in D1?). But I was not at all sure, and made the 2mm my first dependent claim.
ReplyDeleteMich
This was exactly why I also didn't put in the 25um. Substantially perpendicular needed to be define especially in the context of the manufacturing setting.
ReplyDeleteSubstantially perpendicular does not provide a set of angles. I think the EPO needed to steer candidates by providing a definition on what is meant by substantially perpendicular.
I think it boils down to this...
ReplyDeleteThe invention is a coating for THERMALLY INSULATING superalloys engine parts at temperatures over 1600 C. Thermal insulation is the function of the coating, otherwise it's useless.
The controversial sentence states, preferably thickness is at least 25 um otherwise THERMAL INSULATION is INSUFFICIENT. In other words the client says preferably it's 25 um otherwise it doesn't work!
Conveniently this feature gives you novelty over D2 which has a different purpose. But the inventive feature over D1 is the heart of the invention - the columnar microstructure.
I'm not sure this is ambiguous. Analogy is a client tells you they have a great idea for a waterproof phone cover and preferably it's hermetically sealed otherwise it leaks.
I think it is the way it was phrased that seemed confusing to me. I got myself in an utter muddle and perhaps not using the word preferably would help. In the moment, I was utterly confused by the statement.
DeleteIf you do leave out 25um, is there basically no marks at all for independent product claim
just to add that I left out 25um thickness from independent claim 1 and added it to my dependent claims. I was also confused over the word preferably in this context of the description around the 25um thickness. Hindsight is a wonderful thing now.
DeleteSeems it was a trap. Harsh to use the word preferably. If it had said 'in our designs we use...' or even 'the thickness should be' it would still leave some figuring out but be less contradictory. Particularly harsh for people not sitting in their native language.
DeleteWhy would the EPO do this to candidates and create heaps of confusion.
ReplyDeleteIncreasing difficult by throwing deliberate misleading statements is not actually good for testing fitness to pass. I think it was a genuine mistake by the EPO and I don't think they intend to make contradictory statement on something quite crucial.
as mentioned below, the component they tested wasnt suitable for use @1600, (which is specified by "for" term in claim"). Also towards the end, the coated components didn't have any other uses apart from in engines @1600 so
ReplyDeleteClaiming a layer probably is not intended as the clients sells/manufactures components, no need to broaden claim to coating
ReplyDeleteSo this bus motor...
ReplyDeleteLooking back at my claims, I took out super-alloy because I thought it was unnecessarily limiting, but I put "for engines with a combustion zone at a temperature of at least 1600°C" which was intended to exclude "bus motor".
Do people think that's OK?
Also, I took out "ceramic oxide" because it appeared to be unclear and replaced it with "metal oxide". I can't see much that in this blog, so do people think that is a mistake?
The bus component clearly wasn't suitable for temps over 1600 so you're novel over that. Maybe lose a couple of marks for being unnecessarily broad? See 2018 examiner report when some broadened beyond glass.
DeleteDid you put metal oxide with a melt temp over 1600? That seemed to be the defn in D1, although D1 still used ceramic in claim. I suspect either was fine. If you left out melt temp you might lose a few marks for being too broad again?
Obvs this is just my read of it.
I also thought above 25 was essential. Even if it were described as being preferable, indeed the paper said something like otherwise there's insufficient thermal isolation. However I debated hard over whether to include the 2mm, since I also had no adhesion layer and was basing the invention on the reduced weight. In the end I didn't include it, because by memory the paper said something like, a thickness of less than 2mm is preferred, to ensure reduced weight. I took this as although 2mm or less ensures reduced weight, it is not essential for it (especially as I think the thickness of the layers wasn't discussed in D1?). But I was not at all sure, and made the 2mm my first dependent claim.
ReplyDeletemich
I also thought above 25 was essential. Even if it were described as being preferable, indeed the paper said something like otherwise there's insufficient thermal isolation. However I debated hard over whether to include the 2mm, since I also had no adhesion layer and was basing the invention on the reduced weight. In the end I didn't include it, because by memory the paper said something like, a thickness of less than 2mm is preferred, to ensure reduced weight. I took this as although 2mm or less ensures reduced weight, it is not essential for it (especially as I think the thickness of the layers wasn't discussed in D1?). But I was not at all sure, and made the 2mm my first dependent claim.
ReplyDeletemich
The "bus" embodiment was not suitable for an engine used @1600 (it melted) so as long as the claim said something along lines of "for an engine with combustion zone operating at a temp of at least 1600" this was discounted. Also i noted people saying they mention a component in general but the letter said these components had no other uses in other engines or fields. So why would you not include suitable for language?
ReplyDeleteI have done that... that is exactly my reasoning of putting the 2mm in the claim.
ReplyDeleteI cannot follow the discussion of many comments above about the 25µm feature and the assumed "lack of clarity" of the paper on the issue.
ReplyDeleteI found the language of todays exam rather clear in that the client described the 25µm as optional, i.e., it is not an essential feature in the sense of Art. 84 EPC.
However, many commententators seem to assume that only features, which are clearly defined as essential in the client's letter need to be put in the claims. I think this is not the case in paper A.
I think in previous papers, features which were described as optional by the applicant frequently needed to be added to the independent claims in order to make the claims novel/inventive over the prior art
There is a difference between features, which are described essential for the invention to work, and which need be included for Art. 84 EPC and features which may be added to distinguish from the prior art.
If a claim with all the features described by the client as essential would already be novel and inventive, why would paper A comprise prior art at all? It would be useless. There have been papers in the past, where only the features described as essential by the client were needed, however, I think it is usually not the case.
So I think the question of whether to include the 25µm not really depends so much on the wording of the paper/clients letter (which was clear to me said "optional"), but rather on the assessment of the prior art.
Yes and no. the statement around 25um thickness can be worded a bit more clearly and seems (intentionally or not) slightly confusing to many. D2 - use of perpendicular wording vs angle etc... was also discussed here. I don't disagree but I do think the text can be a bit clearer for sure. Given the above, punishing candidates by awarding zero marks (I assume the worse) only on omission of this feature from claim 1 seems unfair.
DeleteIt seems they have deliberately (or not) created confusion by conflating statements around 25um which is not (as we've been told many times) what the EPO intends to do with these papers.
DeleteI get where you're coming from as the feature did provide the novelty over D2.
DeleteBut I think this was a deliberate trap - the client was wrong (as they can be in real life!)
A coating of less than 25um doesn't provide sufficient thermal insulation. The superalloy will melt! one of the early paragraphs said superalloys melt above 1600 so they are coated to provide thermal insulation. The 25um thickness is an essential feature.
its a bit clumsy to use preferably and then describing it as essential in the same sentence. It creates huge amount of confusion.
DeleteI do understand where you are coming from Echo Patents - but based on previous years, that is basically zero marks for independent claims based on a confusing sentence on a feature that appears to be crucial. It hasn't been this confusing on other papers where the feature is essential for distinguishing against prior art. Its a bitter pill to swallow on this simple mistake derived from being confused in the exam.
DeleteI agree that it was a bit contradictory that the client stated "preferable" and the next half sentence appeared to insinuate that the feature was actually required for insulation.
DeleteAs said above, a feature being described as "preferable" does certainly not exclude that the feature is required for making the claim novel/inventive.
I do not think that the comittee intended to create confusion, but that their aim was rather to not provide the solution to the paper on silver platter, yet still provide guidance which features to use.
Again, I think most of a time a feature needs to be used that was not described as essential by the client. The 25µm was somewhat in between essential/non-essential in the clients letter.
I don't disagree, it was harsh of the EPO, particularly for those not sitting in native language and particularly this year.
DeleteIt sat as a ? on my rough sheet until I read D2. Then I had a re-read of that para and it clicked. On another day it wouldn't have. Who's to say it's even right!
I think the issue here is that the contradictory statement really didn't help and provided confusion. Naturally, if you are slightly confused with phrasing you wouldn't feel confident about it at all.
DeleteIn principle, yes a preferably feature can be used to confer novelty but previous papers have made it much clearer. The issue here is the apparent confusion/wording used in the same sentence. It might seem trivial now but when you've read it first time under time pressure, it literally did not make much sense. So it seems pretty hard/harsh from the EPO if this is a deliberate act on their behalf.
Unfortunately today, I allowed the wording to confusing me that I didn't feel confident sticking it in the independent claim. It is a dependent claim but I suspect it probably is not enough.
DeleteWould the EPO be aware of this "contradictory" statement. If it is done on purpose from them then fair enough but if it was unintentional, is it worth notifying the EPO or would they consider this anyway given what is on the blog here. The Examiner seems to be following these blogs
DeleteI would assume that they are aware of how they worded the paper and I think that the ambiguity was to some extent intentional. I think they wanted to provide technical information that below 25µm there is no thermal insulation.
DeleteAs a side node, without this piece of information, nobody could deduce that the coating of D2 is too thin.
However, they did not want to plainly present it as a feature mentioned by the client as essential.
In any case, as far as I know, they mark only a fraction of papers and then they discuss on issue and set the final marking sheet. So, if it turns out that 25µm was indeed intended as a feature of the independent claim and 80% of candidates missed it, they will most probably adjust the marking scheme to account for that. That is how it was always done in the past.
There is a difference of making it contradictory vs not making it obvious. If statements are contradictory - it throws off candidates and confuses them. You can't confidently put things into claims if you don't feel comfortable/understand what the statement says. Does feel harsh to use contradictory language. Off course - hindsight is wonderful now.
Deleteecho patents said it best. On another day - alot of people (including me) have easily missed this because it confused me.
P.S.: The question of which claims to use for novelty is sort of entirely different than the determination of essential features for Art. 84 EPC.
ReplyDeleteOnce you arrive at the conclusion that 25µm is necessary for distinguishing over D2, you do not really have to care, whether the feature is now "essential" or not, since it is clearly disclosed.
The problem of the ambiguity of the clients letter only occurs, once you have concluded that the feature is not required for novelty.
(Of course, we do not know yet, if the feature is part of the model solution and there are properly other ways to distinguish from D2)
Did anyone claim a coating instead of a component with a coating? ... with 25um, columnar structure and stating angle range for columns?
ReplyDeleteI did (see my comments a little further up). Should work as well in my opinion as long as you have all the other required features in there too (especially a coating for an engine part > 1600°C to be novel over the Bus engine because the bis engine coating was clearly not suitable for that application).
DeleteWhether the 25um thickness was put in independent claim or not, many here seem to be in agreement that the 25um thickness statement in the client letter was very contradictory and appear confusing to some. Is this an intentional thing from the EPO? Never seen this tactics used before in any previous papers
ReplyDeleteAgree with this. Certainly a very tough paper and seem much more difficult than 2017, 2018 and 2019 papers. I honestly thought it was difficult to navigate through on screen as you had to jump around the screen quite a lot of bits of features and embodiments were spread everywhere. There was something about turbines at the start and then somewhere towards the end.
Deletecompletely agree with the contradictory statements leading to confusion.
DeleteI agree with megan, I also interpreted it this way. To be on the very very safe side, I claimed the thickness of the cerox layer to be of 31um to 2mm. But now I am full of doubts on it...
ReplyDeleteIt would be helpful if we knew what Deltapatent's opinion is on the situation with claim 1... Looking forward to what is said,
ReplyDeleteSeemed quite a tough paper. Much harder than previous papers.
ReplyDeleteBe gutted if I fail this paper. It sucks because of the cancellation of EQE2020 that I had to largely study on my own this year.
If this happens, you should look for security tab in the preferences, settings or similar, and allow all permissions to the url. It's a problem of security. I had the same problem in Mock 1.
ReplyDeleteA "ceramic oxide layer deposited on the substrate" could in my opinion be understood like that an adhessive layer between the oxide layer and the substrate is excluded!? Can this be correct when the Figures show an addhesive layer? Do I remembered something wrong?
ReplyDeleteI formulated "ceramic oxide layer on[german: auf, french: sur] the surface of the substrate" without another additional verb like deposited or arranged. In my opinion on/auf/sur can be interpretet with or without contacting. This is what I think I can gather from dictionaries. Of course, this can also be wrong according to the Examiners. Furthermore, in my opinion it does not matter if one claims "layer on the substrate" or "layer on the surface of the substrate", because it is the same and both indicates that the ceramic oxide layer is not in the substrate.
"An engine component having a substrate and a ceramic oxide layer" I would have claimed in real life, but within the scope of the exam I thought that might be a bit too unclear.
Whats your opinion in this regard?
I left out thickness 25 micrometres but included an adhesion layer in claim 1 + the method claim using electron beam (in order to be novel over D2).. After reading the above discussions, now I guess thickness 25 micrometres should be an essential feature and an adhesion layer would be an unnecessary limitation... Does anyone know how many marks might be deducted for these? For paper 2019, EPO took away 30 points if a claim did not specify the cell culture chamber is formed between the two "opposing" membrances. I was shocked about that as it was a huge punishment for such a simple word left out :(
ReplyDeleteI hope the EPO will consider the year, new system and especially this year's paper A when the paper had some contradictory statements in them. Was kinda misleading.
DeleteI did not read the paragraph about the bus motor as disclosing something that was available to the public, so I did not limit the substrate to superalloy and had in a dependent claim that the substrate was a superalloy or aluminium... Did it say somewhere that aluminium melts below 1 600 °C? I missed it
ReplyDeleteI did the same. Limited to a metal substrate in claim 1 and superalloy only in claim 2. I was not sure about the bus being prior art or not but I did hedge my bets a little (fence-sitting and all that). In claim 1, I started with "A coated engine component for use in high temperature environments" then I also had the further specification in claim 1 that "the spaces between the individual columns are sized and configured so as to allow the coating to deform when the substrate and the meatal oxide expand upon heating so as to protect the substrate against high temperatures". Not sure if that is enough to get novelty in the event that the bus is actually considered to be prior art (which was definitely not clear from the client's letter). If the markers are reasonable then maybe it will be enough but I imagine I would anyway lose marks for clarity perhaps? Any thoughts from anyone? Novel? Clear?
DeleteI read Paper A again today and I am convinced that the bus motor was a proof of concept type experiment carried out by the inventor and it is not prior art. If it is actually prior art this was incredibly ambiguous.
DeleteI agree, I can't see how the bus motor experiment is prior art... testing something in a lab or similar is not prior art in my opinion ...
DeleteI read the part about the bus motor several times and concluded that it is only there to point out that a suitable method for the coating is the electron beam method not the one used for the bus motor but well I might have overlooked something ...
I also thought that the bus motor was an experiment I thought it was something to be protected by the claim 1 as well.
ReplyDeleteSander, when will you publish your solution? Looking forward to it!
ReplyDeleteI also integrated the thickness>25. I longly hesitated because it seems to be optional regarding the letter and because the letter did not insist on this point so it was quite surprising for me that this characteristic would ne so important. But it was for me obvious that in order to protect the superalloy which is the first reason why the ceramic oxyde layer is used, the thickness has to be included. Without a sufficient thickness, it could not be possible to protect the superalloy. That is why I integrated this characteristic.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, from my point of view, adding or not the adhesion layer did not change the IS. So I did not integrate the adhesion layer.
What about the gaps betweeen the columns. The are besser, so the columns can move during heating. I think the gaps are also Essential.
ReplyDeleteWhat are your first impressions to this year's A-paper?
ReplyDeleteTough paper.
Any general or specific comments?
-
Surprising elements in the client's letter and the prior art?
- confusing description.
- methods for manufacturing were discussed were discussed intermittently which made me doubt if they were combinable for a very long time. the lack of annotation or the constant scrolling in the pdf does not help.
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?
I only really benefited from copy pasting a part of the introductory portion. no more, no less. Scrolling for specific sections of text is annoying and makes you lose focus, while the preview window is cropped and hardly user friendly. While i could still live with the lack of options which would be available in a text editors such as word, the lack of highlighting or annotation in the PDF is in my eyes the biggest shortcoming of this browser.
How did you experience taking the exam from your home or office location rather than in an examination center?
this is, in my opinion, one of the major advantages of the eEQE. You arrive in a peaceful environment (office in my case)
(How) was it different due to the due of the LockDown Browser?
the lockdown browser is not user friendly. It is simply not fit to handle papers such as these. in particular the "consulting the paper" portion is clunky, lacks features which would make it more appropriate for these kind of papers (highlighting, annotating, tabs format makes you change windows and sight of your purpose, the preview window being only usefull in niche circumstances but difficult to swap between pages...)
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? no, not in this paper
Did you have enough time? i was barely finished. mainly due to the complex paper it was
How many marks do you expect to have scored? tough to say. i hope for a pass but the points are so easily lost because of minor inaccuracies.
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score? low.
How did this year's paper compare to the papers of the last few years?
Similar difficulty level?
i made all of the "joint A papers" as well as several Mechanics and studied some chemist papers. IN all the papers i did, this A paper was by far the most difficult, in particular when you exclusively look at the joint papers.
Could you find the wording for claim features in the clients letter and the prior art? much less than what was previously the case.
Was the subject-matter well understandable, for chemists as well as e/m candidates? I believe so, although the subject-matter was difficult to discern at a certain point.
Multiple independent claims? Functional features?
yes multiple independent claims, 2 method claims, product claim. functional features would have rendered a more generic method claim not novel in my opinion. the main issue in my opinion was that one of the methods of producing the coating was novel over the cited prior art because of a machining step, while the other method was disclosed although not in the context of heat insulating. Rather the coating was used for as a security means. Nonetheless, excluding the fact that the method was disclosed as a method to apply a security coating, the disclosed method of depositing disclosed all the steps of the clients second method with the addition of filling the gaps between the columns with ions.
Same.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what people are talking about re: the bus motor component. It wasn't clear that it was prior art as nothing said it was public, said it was a technician experimenting with it, also said it was made of aluminium and aluminium didn't work. Both not prior art and not something the claims had to cover in my view.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Megan
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the bus motor was known but without the columnar microstructure. Inventors tried to add the columnar structure to it, but this was an experiment, not a disclosure.
ReplyDeleteI really don't understand where is the inventive step of Claim 1. I think we can't add the thicknesses, because the D1 has already disclosed thicknesses of layer al least 25 micrometre. Also, inventor states that its optional. Can we write just thicknesses to have inventive step ?
ReplyDeleteReturning here in preparation of the 2022 paper A and just wanted to add that also the marking was not only strict but unfair and in my opinion wrong in 2021. I did not include the 25 mircometers in claim 1, but instead specified that the ceramic oxide layer is suitable for preventing a melting of the substrate above 1600 °C -- and scored zero points for claim 1 (likely for an alleged lack of novelty over D2). In my opinion, only a functional limitation really made sense here, since the thermal insulation properties of the ceramic oxide layers also depend on the type of ceramic oxide layer used.
ReplyDeleteFunctional features and results-to-be-achieved are very useful and often wanted, but beware that functional features may -if pushed too far- become wish features, and lead to unclarity - see GL F-IV, 4.10,
ReplyDelete