A 2023: 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?
How did this year's paper compare to the papers of the last few years? Similar difficulty level?
Was the subject-matter well understandable, for chemists as well as e/m candidates?Multiple independent claims? Functional features? Could you find the wording for claim features in the clients 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 many marks do you expect to have scored?
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score?
What was the effect of doing it online? Of typing your answer rather than writing it by hand? Could you benefit from being able to copy from the exam paper into your answer? And from copying parts of your answer elsewhere into your answer?
How did you experience taking the exam from your home or office location rather than in an examination center?
What was the effect of the situation that you had to take the exam largely from the screen (as only a part could be printed) rather than from paper?
Did you experience any technical difficulties during the exam? How & how fast were they solved?
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. [Update 13/3/2023: the paper is available in Wiseflow EPO - EQE Compendium, and copied from there to the end of the blog with our answer]
The core of our answers will be given as soon as possible in a separate blog post.
Please be reminded that you can view and print/download copy of your exam answer after the exam, via the eye below the "1. Paper"-icon in the bottom left part of the flow window of the respective flow. (It may not be available immediately after the official end of the (part of the) paper, but only 30-60 minutes later.) Apart from the pre-printable parts, the paper itself cannot be downloaded (unless you copied it in full into your exam answer).
We look forward to your comments!
Comments are welcome in any official EPO language, not just English. So, comments in German and French are also very welcome!
Please do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 09-03-2023 21:09"), whereas using your real name or a nick name is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation. You do not need to log in or make an account - it is OK to just put your (nick) name at the end of your post.
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!
SHARE:
Guidelines F-IV 4.8: "The use of trade marks and similar expressions in claims is not allowed as it does not guarantee that the product or feature referred to is not modified while maintaining its name during the term of the patent. They may be allowed exceptionally if their use is unavoidable and they are generally recognised as having a precise meaning."
ReplyDeleteIsn't Teflon generally recognised as having a precise meaning?
Kapton maybe as well (see Wiki: exsits since 1960s)?
So we can use these generally recognized trade names?
Or do we need to use polytetrafluoroethylene and poly (4,4'-oxydiphenylene-pyromellitimide))?
If Kapton is not, than Kapton in D2 can also not destroy novelty or be used against inventive step, or can it?
You seem to overlook the first of the two requirements: "They may be allowed exceptionally if their use is unavoidable [and ....]".
DeleteSo it seems you need the long chemical names in your claim.
oh dear god, why are there so many traps in this paper A. Its ridiculous and has never been in any other paper A of the past.
DeleteShould still be ok if you have chemical formulae in the description as basis for your claims.
DeleteI bet alot of candidates will have stated Teflon or Kapton in their claims. Shouldn't it be sign posted with an R to make it clear it was a trademark. I thought it was a well known term in the art as it appears to be used in frequenently and in other prior art documents. They need to put more signposting up for non-chemists here. Equally, I thought that if you were a chemist, this paper was also not easy. I found use claims completely difficult but also the mechanical device itself was not easy to claim. Oh dear, oh dear!
DeleteAnother year of retaking this paper :(
Sorry Anonymous, it did say that it is trade name when Teflon was mentioned first, in [004]. Same for Kapton, in [013].
Delete[009] In principle, any pair of electrically conductive elements separated by a gap
ReplyDeletefunctions as electrodes generating an electrical field in the gap when subject to a
voltage. Therefore, we have devised another example of the invention shown
schematically in Fig. 3. In this device 16, which is also wearable on the skin, the first and
second copper sheets 2a, 2b are folded around the substrate 1 and extend along the
bottom face of the substrate 1 forming the gap 8. The electrodes 4a, 4b are formed by
the ends of the copper sheets 2a, 2b at the gap 8, which are therefore arranged so as to
apply an electric field to the skin as in the previous example. The necessary electrical
connection between each of the electrodes 4a, 4b and the respective copper sheets 2a,
2b is provided by the copper sheets themselves: no wires are needed.
2022 Paper A was bad but I think this paper is equally if not even worse than all the papers. They seem to be deviating away from what were supposed to be equal papers for all for every year with simple subject matter and clear signposting. What are they doing to papers A and B.
ReplyDeleteHi Roel, I had a cosmetic method claim, including in intact skin but I also added that the method is not a therapeutic method to be sure that it will not be understood as a medical use. What do you think about the additional limitation (disclaimer) wherein the said method is not a therapeutic method?
ReplyDeleteAfter we finally got a copy of the client's letter earlier today, we could make our answer:
ReplyDeletePlease refer to the separate blog post "Our solution for Paper A 2023 - Electric plaster for skin problems" for our attempt to the claims, with a brief clarification, at:
http://eqe-a-em.blogspot.com/2023/03/our-solution-for-paper-2023-electric.html
We also added the text and figures of the client's letter and the prior art to that blog post.
DeleteVery difficult especially for the people do not have EM background
ReplyDeleteVery difficult especially people do not have EM background
ReplyDeleteDifficult and too mechanical paper, not suitable for the candidates from both chemical and mechanical background. Last 2 years (2022&2023), paper A is different than the papers of 2017-2021. It is going to direction of more mechanical. Even the technology is understandable this year, in order to draft a proper main independent claim, experience in drafting mechanical paper is necessary. drafting mechanical and chemicals are quite different and for the candidates no experience in the field of mechanics, very difficult and time consuming to cover all three embodiments.
ReplyDelete