e-EQE 2021 Examiners' Reports available for the main exam papers
The Examiners' Reports are available for Paper A, for Paper B, for Paper C, and for Paper D!
The results (marks for candidates, pass rates and other statistics) are not yet available, neither publicly on the EQE website, nor via myEQE for individual candidates. It seems reasonable to expect that they will become available shortly (as in previous years, the results and the examiner's reports always became available shortly after each other; however, in previous years the results became available before the Examiners' Reports).
Update 21/6/2021: The results letter have been send to the candidates.
"The purpose of the present examiners' report is to enable candidates to prepare for future examinations (cf. Art. 6(6) of the Regulation on the European qualifying examination for professional representatives)."
The Examiner's Reports provide general comments to each of the papers, as well as the Possible Solutions for each and -for A, B and C- an indication of the marking.
The Examiner's Reports do not contain any comments as to the side-effects of the online format, nor whether that has somehow been reflected in the marking, except for the indication in the Examiners' Report of Paper C that: "The examination of 2021 was different from previous years in several aspects, the most important of which is that it was held online and that it was split in two parts. Technical aspects regarding the shift to an online exam are not part of this report".
Update 21/6/2021: The results letter send to candidates provides:
"Due to the technical issues that occurred during the first flow of part one of paper D of the electronic EQE of 2021, the Examination Board has decided to exceptionally neutralize this part of the examination. Therefore, the Examination Board has exceptionally awarded to all candidates full marks (25 marks) for the flow D1-1, which consisted of questions 1, 2 and 6."
The tables with marks attached to the results letters show the marks that were actually scored by the candidate (excluding the neutralization); the score shown in the letter itself includes the effect of the neutralization.
I called the EPO this morning and apparently there is a technical issue with sending out of the results. The results were supposed to be send last week. They are working on solving this. According to the helpdesk the results should be out 'soon, probably this week'. According the same helpdesk there is no need checking the site; we will be messaged with an e-mail.
ReplyDeleteE-EQE strikes again! Muahahaha
DeleteMyEQE issue I suppose? Why do they not simply publish a list with all marks as they did in previous years. Publishing a pdf-file on the EQE website cannot be that difficult..
DeleteI expect this is plan-B. As a guess, they may have abandoned the old reporting system and the new system is not fit for such a list. Or they expect to fix the problem soon. Or another reason.
DeleteWhy do they not post the results for D1-2, D2, A, B and C in English, and those for D1-1 in German!
DeleteJust publish the damned pdf files already as they used to... Maybe they do not want to do as the previous years because they do not want to let the public know about the average passing rate and other statistics like that?
DeleteThey also sent out an email last week saying results are due in July. WHAT IS GOING ON. they are contraditing themselves again, just like Paper A this year.
ReplyDeleteSurprised they haven't released a PR statement saying e-EQE results went smoothly this year too.
DeleteThere is a lot more to be fixed with the eEQE. They need to redraft the papers A, B and C properly and adapt it for the eEQE 2022. Allow full printing of the papers. Get rid of the wiseflow platform or improve it significantly.
ReplyDeleteWe were promised that the language issue of Paper D will be taken into account for paper D, but also for other papers too that week (especially for A as it was a day after). Nothing from the EPO.
ReplyDelete"also for the other papers"? That must have been in your dreams...
DeleteVery reasonable that the impact of paper D language issue affected performances of other papers. A grounds to Appeal on.
DeleteI agree with Anon 10:08. It is disappointing, but it is difficult to argue that language issue affects performance of paper A. At the end of day, how would you expect the compensation?.... if it is approved, that would cause more problems...
Deleteit probably is a known factor that it did impact on performance but hard to accomodate for. The other issues is the lack of highlighting, printing the whole paper and poor word formatting.
DeleteThere is no doubt that these exams are the hardest and most difficult to prepare for compared to other years. The EPO needs to look at that.
Didn't the EPO say that "no candidate would be disadvantaged" as a result of the language fiasco? Hard to argue that having the stress of the paper itself, a later finish, plus having to write a letter of complaint the same day because the EPO's "within 24 hour" rule wouldn't put a candidate at a disadvantage for an exam the next day, as compared to a candidate who didn't have the language issue. Agree it's impossible to accommodate for, but then the EPO shouldn't have said "no candidate will be disadvantaged"!
DeleteI agree with Anony 10.52 - There is no doubt that the effects of paper D language also impacted the exam the next day. The EPO didn't release a statement until after Paper A so candidates would be worried sick going into the Paper A exam.If you didn't do paper D the day before, I can understand that there is no disadvantage to you. But for those that did do paper D and then paper A, no doubt that there has been a disadvantage.
DeleteCompletely agree with 10.52 and 11.08.
DeleteExpecting alot of appeals this year. The eEQE this year is not great for the EPO. There were far too many issues with it.
ReplyDeleteEEQE is like the Calvinball of EQEs
ReplyDeleteThis comment (and your username) are highly underrated.
DeleteRemember how candidates overloaded Zendesk and Wise Flow Lock (whatever)?
ReplyDeleteMaybe they're having problems uploading results to the results page or to my eqe because they also didn't consider that candidates would be refreshing the page multiple times a minute from the moment that the examiner's report published until the results were published.
MyEQE has gotten really slow these last 15 refreshes. Is that good news or bad news?
Maybe you should stop refreshing your page then... or check once per day.
DeleteThey will notify us when the results are available.
The EPO as an organisation are beyond a joke nowadays and this years antics have just proved this and Friday's antics was the icing on the cake. They do not care about candidates well being or health but are more intent on adding stress on top of more stress to candidates. This is a disgrace and the organisation are not competent in how they deal with PR issues. They just want to are more insult to injury - this year has been a fiasco from the EPO/EQE committee.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the eqe 2021 was a disgrace and the steps and press realeases from the EPO add insult to injury. I normally do not bicker about exams, but this exam has been "special" in the worst kind of way. So congrats to the EPO for this memorable experience!
DeleteIt has been shambolic this year. I've never known exams to be so poorly written, unfit for the move online exam and a software that doesn't allow you to do any of the basics like highlighting.
DeleteCoupled with several mocks that had no reflection to the main exams, a language disaster, a PR disaster and now this.
Get it together EPO. There are many lives and careers that rely on these exams.
Results are expected in July (at least that's what the letter said from last week). I imagine that the Examination Board is currently deciding on compensation for individual candidates given the circumstances this year.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing the info received by the EQE helpdesk.
ReplyDeleteIt's unbelievable that the results are ready to go but they are not available to candidates!!
Come on EPO, publish or send the resuts quickly, in the fastest way! Can't see any reasinable reason to not do it today!
I echo many statements here - the releasing of examiner's report before results is cruel for candidates who will now be waiting very anxiously. Its uncertainity once again that candidates face. There is nothing on how candidates are compensated at all this year.
ReplyDeleteNothing less than expected of the EPO/EQE committees at this point - they entire examination process has been a complete disaster for the past 18 months. Despite having almost a year of warning, the consensus seems to be that the online examinations (and particularly the use of WiseFlow) were *not* a success, contrary to the EPO patting themselves on the back for doing so well. Paper B in particular did not reflect previous years and seemed poorly drafted - I don't see any mention of the untracked amendments made by the client - how were these supposed to be addressed? Such high expectations are placed on candidates sitting these examinations, and yet the organisers seem to barely achieve the bare minimum standards for holding the examinations.
ReplyDeletePaper C was also a real joke. There was barely any time to do anything in C1 and we were given information that we did not need in the first part. Only paper D was an acceptable paper as it compared well to other years (apart from the DE version for the first 30 minutes).
DeletePaper C topped the lot with the confusion created by the split. Clearly papers A, B and C were not adapted appropriately this year at all.
DeleteGod help those of us that used the weekend to tally up the points to try and determine if they've passed or not. As tempted as I was, I didn't fall into this evil trap set by the EPO. Just pure cruelty to ruin a candidates weekend in such a fashion - God help those with a family as I'm sure the stress affected many other than the candidates. Well done EPO/EQE, well done - give yourselves another pat on the back why don't you.
ReplyDeleteIts clear that the exam papers were not appropriately checked or that they did not test the exams using wiseflow. Had they did, they would understand that outroar of candidates this year.
ReplyDeleteOh dear - why has the EPO done this? Surely, there must be some coordination? It just looks complete chaos from the EPO.
ReplyDeleteI actually think that some of the commentatross are too negative. Yes the disaster of day 1 was terrible, and B was overloaded, but I don't think thsi warrants the present level of critque.
ReplyDeleteIn particular, it seems that the marking of paper B was greatly tuned to account for the difficulty as can be seen from the reports (almost no deduction for different solutions, few points for claim 6).
The reports are very detailed as usual and therefore very helpful.
I would wait for the results before complaining about the Committee, which seems to have already realized and acknowledged some of the difficulties of the papers.
Could not agree more. I, for one, thought the C split was ok given the circumstances.
DeleteI'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I think all the comments are relevant and warranted in this instance.
Delete@HF I think people were already pretty on edge after at least the language screw up, and paper B. And now the EPO have got it very wrong again by releasing the mark schemes like this. I stupidly started self-marking my scripts yesterday, which has made me feel so much worse...
DeleteHi all, I am the person who called the helpdesk and reported in the first comment of this blog. You make me feel a bit embarrassed for posting the summary of my call.
ReplyDeleteTrue, mistakes are made, and because EPO is a closed institute it is easy to talk in hyperbole language about their performance. However the openness in communication between EPO and candidates I am looking for (and apparently others also) is not helped by using this language. Rather the opposite. On the phone the helpdesk person I talked to was very understanding and open.
The marks for paper C in the report don't add up. There are some errors in the report.
ReplyDeleteClaim 2 should be worth 21 marks, not 12 marks. If you look at the last page of the report a breakdown is given that adds up to 100, which I'm assuming is accurate.
DeletePlease explain what are the errors in the report for paper C.
DeleteI count 15 + 12 + 21 + 5 + 14 + 16 + 17 = 100
Yes you are right - it doesn't add up
Delete15 + 12 + 12 + 5 + 14 + 16 + 17 = 91 marks.
I think they need to take these reports offline and check again. Its getting embarassing now.
How do you know 21 marks is accurate and meant for C2 - its not an obvious error to me.
DeleteBecause the table at the end of the report that breaks down the marks for each claim says that claim 2 is worth 21 marks...
DeleteI also feel like 21 marks is suitable for a partial problems-based inventive step attack, which is what the proposed attack for claim 2 involves.
I think C1 was undoable in the 3 hours. Had to quickly write some attacks down with little time for analysis/thoughts.
DeleteClaim 2 is max 12 and claim 3 is max 21.
DeleteI got 9 and 18, so it cannot be 12 and 12.
15 + 12 + 21 + 5 + 14 + 16 + 17 = 100
I don't want to spend time to go through solutions. It only boils my blood more after the horrible eqe... I just want to see the results and see what I need to prepare for next year.
ReplyDeleteJust to be sure, I'm switching the language of the results page and myeqe to Deutsch to see if the results are there...
ReplyDeleteUpdate: kein Ergebnis
DeleteI read through you guys comments, and now I am so nervous.... i even cannot focus on today's work.
ReplyDeleteDear EPO, PLEASE, publish the results today!
ReplyDeleteIt appears that the EPO has failed (at least it appears like that from the model solution) to take into account in paper B that the FR version was different in that the client's independent method claim contained the proposed amendment in step b in bold. Thus, it was an obvious hint that step b of said claim needed amendment. Not only that, it is also a clear hint that the term "optional" in step b needs to be deleted from said claim, as it does not make sense to amend an optional feature. As the De/EN version did not contain any indication in bold, this appears to constitute an unequal treatment and any amendments (or lack thereof) to step b of said claim should not be penalized.
ReplyDeleteTrue! That would be a valid point for appeal in my opinion.
DeleteAdditionally, issuing the examiner's reports in English only unfairly penalizes candidates who responded in French or German, and issuing the Examiner's reports with 2019 legal basis unfairly penalizes candidates who used 2020 legal basis.
ReplyDeleteIn both cases, unequal treatment arises from the fact that the candidates who used 2019 and/or English are able to estimate their scores more easily and quickly, and are therefore able to spend more time preparing their appeals, and also to prepare their appeals more efficiently, because they can compare their papers directly to the content of the examiner's report, whereas other candidates must first attempt to determine how much exactly their answers correspond to the Examiner's report, before they can prepare their appeals.
Anyone else getting anxious with every e-mail ping they get thinking it is regarding the EQE Results!
ReplyDeleteSame, but I wouldn't say "getting anxious" so much as "collapsing further into a pit of irreparable psychological damage".
DeleteAnyone else who wants to give a call to the EPO and share information with us?
ReplyDeleteThey can only be reached from 9-11.
DeleteResults are out on myEQE...
ReplyDeleteresults are there!! (at least for me)
ReplyDeleteI PASSED WOOOOOOOO!!!!!
ReplyDeleteresults are in on myeqe
ReplyDeleteI passed all four papers!
ReplyDeleteAll four candidates of our firm passed all four exams. I expected otherwise after all the complaints.
DeletePhew, I passed. I got 47 in Paper B for a completely different solution to the model one. (I still think mine was better!)
ReplyDeleteWell, let's concede I like the way they managed the D1 issue. And that is passed!
ReplyDeleteBye bye wiseflow, this is very good news!
Not so fast! You need wiseflow to be on the list of professional reps.
Deletehttps://www.epo.org/applying/online-services/representatives/request.html
Do you mean I have to REINSTALL Wiseflow?!!
DeleteDamned, it's not over with Wiseflow, there is still this last challenge, so close...
DeleteSo where exactly do I register? I can't see anywhere in Wiseflow.
DeleteI got 70 for paper A and 71 for paper B, wow, more than what i expected.
ReplyDeletehey, there is something wrong here. I got 1P for claim 1 in the C-exam although I made a novelty attack almost identical with the one in the examiner report. There's something very wrong here. Did anybody else experience a similar thing?
ReplyDeleteI got 29 point in total for claims 1, 2, 3 and 4, 6a and the effective dates! I also think there is something wrong! I may have some language differences but I attacked these claims in a correct way!
DeleteI actually failed D paper but thank God for the neutralizing, I actually passed as a result of it, phew!! I didn't pass C but passing D paper, I'll take that over all the other papers any day!
ReplyDeleteSame for me and I'll take it! C cannot be as bad again surely!!
DeletemyEQE website is not working (times out each time I try to get my documents). Anyone else having issues?
ReplyDeleteSame here.
DeleteI signed off as soon as I got my results and learned that I couldn't do anything on that page to get my name put on the list of professional represenatives.
DeleteI'm glad that they show what we would have gotten on paper D without the compensation for D1-1. That way there's no doubt about my fitness to practice.
I'm so relieved that it's done!
Wooo!
It is not possible right now also for me to reach myEQE at all.
ReplyDeleteI had been holding onto my test materials in case I needed to study for next year's test. Tomorrow I begin the process of moving everything to my office, in order to recover 3m² of my apartment.
ReplyDeleteNot possible to reach myEQE either.
ReplyDeleteNot possible to reach myEQE here too...
ReplyDeleteI received no email from the EPO to say the EQE results are out. Did others receive email correspondence?
ReplyDeleteNo, but we've all been clicking refresh on the results page and on myeqe non-stop since Friday afternoon.
DeleteTime to sign off now that I passed!
- Molly Dorset Pauley
Convenient how the EPO release the results at the same time the epi is holding an online conference on "Modernising the EQE"
ReplyDeleteHow do I appeal C, I don't think they've marked my script properly.
ReplyDeleteI also need to appeal
DeleteI have the same feeling. I performed the same attack against claim 1 like in the model solution and got .. 1P !
DeleteDid you do that attack during part 1, or only after the break?
Delete"Marks for attacks on claims 1 – 3 were only awarded if the respective attack was made in part 1 of the examination."
C-1/2
For C, the report clearly says that any inventive step attacks starting from Annex 4 in combination with Annex 5 were assessed in the context of dependent claim 5. I would expect that inventive step attacks for claim 4 would apply for claim 5. No marks given for claim 5.
DeleteSame here - I used the wrong documents as closest prior art, which resulted in 0 P or 1 P marks.
DeleteWhile it may be true as incorrect, the marking feels a bit harsh.
Not sure about my chances to appeal in such case though.
Attack on claim 1 was of course done during the first part. And it's perfect, I have the papers next to each other (my answer and their model solution).
DeleteI also got 0 in claim 5 for doing a pretty complex and well argued IS attack starting from A5 and combining with A3.
Definitely worth appealing John.
DeletePaper C marking seems very harsh.
DeleteI also need to appeal! they've marked my script very bad!
Delete"I performed the same attack against claim 1 like in the model solution and got .. 1P !"
DeleteDo you want to share your attack with us before you share it with the Board of Appeal?
Did you maybe do more than one attack (I've heard that you only get marks for the lowest scoring attack in those cases) or accidentally contradict yourself somehow?
DeleteHi 4711.
Deleteyes, I did two attacks. one of them was poor and the other one was good. why get marks for the lowest scoring attack ? that's not fair.
I am not sure whether it is a general rule in paper C as well, but... in paper D the Examiners' Reports have indicated multiple times: "Alternative answers, one being correct and one being wrong, to the choice of the markers do no attract any marks".
DeleteIf you do a novelty attack based on A3, as well as an inventive step based on A3 as CPA + something else, you are contradicting yourself, as the inventive step attach relies on novelty w.r.t. A3. In paper D, it is well-documented that you would then not get any marks at all, even if one of them is a correct attack.
By the way, note the general comments on page 2 of the Examers' Report of C 2021 (and for earlier years) and our guidance in our Methodology courses:
Delete"In candidate's answers, the use of information requires citation of the specific reference in the relevant document (e.g. paragraph, line, claim, figure, as appropriate). If prior art uses different terminology to the feature in a claim, a full reasoning requires an explanation why the meaning is the same, on the basis of the information provided in the Annexes".
Thus, you only score marks for attacks if you give arguments why a certain claim term ("reservoir") is anticipated by a term in the prior art ("tank").
Just saying "A3 already shows a reservoir" will not get you any marks; you will need "A3 already shows a tank, which is a kind of reservoir (because ...)".
Can this be a reason why your answer seems the same as the attack in the Examiners' Report although it is not scoring marks?
For inventive step, the Examiners' Report indicates in detail, also in section 2, how an inventive step attack needs to be presented.
Hi Roel.
Deletemy 1st novelty attack against claim 1 was based on A4 1st embodiment and it was an Art.54(3) novelty attack.
my 2nd novelty attack was the right one based on A3 2nd embodiment.
Indeed, I did say "par 002 discloses a cylinder which is a reservoir", so maybe I could have been penalised with 1 mark for this but the rest of the arguments/explanations/definitions were correctly done , even more explicit than in the model solution.
I was not contradicting myself , A3 and A4 are different documents and in the past papers there were many cases of double attacks on the same claim.
Time to Appeal.
ReplyDeleteIs anybody still having trouble accessing myEqe? The page will not load for me :-(
ReplyDeleteApparently - though I don't have anything to confirm this - there is currently a power outage in Munich, resulting myEQE being down. You could not make this stuff up
DeleteThe EQE website does not work...
ReplyDeleteI'm looking for the usual file where EQEreg and results are indicated in a single table... is there this table again this year? can someone post it please?
That table isn't being published this year I don't think - results are sent only to individuals but no global table at all
Deleteok thank you very much! then I can only wait and it is very nerve-wracking!
DeleteDoes anyone know when you can appeal - I too have some issues with the marking of paper C.
ReplyDeleteAnyone else have a contradictory letter? I have pass marks (60 and 62) but the letter says that unfortunately I have failed...
ReplyDeleteEPO writes that you failed considering the whole exam (also the other parts). So when you'll pass also the other parts le letter will say that you passed!!!
DeleteAh you mean all 4 exams? I only sat A and B and have C and D still to go.
DeleteWhat a confusing statement!!
Exactly!
DeleteYou're a star - thanks for your help :)
DeleteCurious, did they did the issue with the C split into consideration? It was overload in the first part.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteClaim 3 was only awarded 5 points maximum, by far the least of all the claims. So yes, I think they took the splitting into account.
DeleteI failed B only, with 41 points. That is so bitter...
ReplyDeleteFailed B with 39%.... it is bitter indeed. Feel like they should have awarded extra marks for this horrible paper
DeleteFailed C but looking at the proposed solution, I believe I should be awarded more marks. Has anyone mentioned already of appealing.
ReplyDeleteI plan to appeal using "wrong closest prior art is as such not a reason for 0 marks" from D 20/17:
Delete3.1 The appellant contests the marking of his answer with respect to claim 2 of Paper C.
3.2 The Appeal Board agrees with the appellant that, in the light of the explanations given in the examiners' report, giving him 0 out of 20 marks for his attack regarding claim 2 appears to be founded solely on the deviation in the choice of the closest prior art for the expected objection of lack of inventive step.
3.3 The following reasons are given in the examiners' report as to why Annex 6 is not a suitable starting point for an objection of lack of inventive step (emphasis added by the Appeal Board): "Annex 6 is a pull-type corkscrew, which comprises a spring around the extraction element’s straight part. The spring would not allow the toothed arms to engage with ridges placed on the straight part."
It follows from this passage that the spring of the corkscrew disclosed in Annex 6 is perceived as a technical obstacle that would militate against the choice of Annex 6 as the closest prior-art document.
3.4 It is established case law that the examiners are obliged to allow for fair marking of answers which deviate from what was expected according to the examiners' report, but are reasonable and competently substantiated (see inter alia D 7/05, OJ EPO 2007, 378, Headnote II and Reasons 13; D 12/82, OJ EPO 1983, 233, Reasons 3). This obligation follows from the object of the qualifying examination, which is to establish whether a candidate is fit to practise as a professional representative (Article 1(1) REE); but it does not rule out the possibility that an individual answer to a part of Paper C may be awarded no marks if, for instance, an objection of lack of inventive step is based on a document which cannot reasonably be regarded as the closest prior art or a suitable starting point for the problem-solution approach or if the reasoning, while structured according to the problem-solution approach, cannot be regarded as a logical and justified ground, in a notice of opposition, prejudicial to the maintenance of a European patent.
3.5 The assertion in the examiners' report that the spring of the corkscrew disclosed in Annex 6 was an obstacle discounting this document as an appropriate starting point for the problem-solution approach had been contested in parallel appeal proceedings.
Delete3.6 On the basis of a summary examination, it is evident from the figure below, filed by the appellant with his letter dated 3 January 2018, that no technical obstacle exists (see also D 14/17).
3.7 The only reason given in the examiners' report disqualifying Annex 6 as a suitable starting point for an objection of lack of inventive step is therefore not tenable. As a consequence, Annex 6 is reasonably to be regarded as an alternative starting point for an objection of lack of inventive step in respect of the subject-matter of claim 2.
3.8 The examination committee was therefore wrong to award no marks for the appellant's attack against claim 2 for lack of inventive step starting from Annex 6 as the closest prior-art document, for the sole reason that the appellant had chosen what the examination committee erroneously thought to be an unsuitable starting point. This marking contravened the examination committee's obligation to award marks for an attack which, albeit deviating from the expected solution, is logical and, in keeping with the recognised practice, justified. The question of which document is correctly to be viewed as representing the closest prior art or the most promising starting point after consideration of all possible and reasonable approaches, and whether the approach of the examiners' report is to be preferred, is not relevant in this respect.
4. For the above reasons, the appeal against the decision to give the appellant's answers to Paper C the mark of 46 is to be allowed. An assessment of the appellant's answers regarding claim 2 in terms of how many marks they deserve involves a review of the marking on the merits and thus value judgments which, according to the established jurisprudence (following D 1/92, OJ EPO 1993, 357), fall outside the competence of the Appeal Board. Therefore, the Appeal Board has decided to remit the case to the Examination Board with the order to instruct the competent examination committee to undertake a new marking of the appellant's Paper C of the European qualifying examination 2017. In view of the outcome of the present appeal, the appeal fee is to be reimbursed, as that is equitable in the circumstances (Article 24(4), third sentence, REE).
CPA
I shall appeal paper C. Don't think the marking is correct.
DeleteFailed B with 43 - that hurts in the bones :( No leniency in marking seen (my WiseFlow had crash and I lost 10-15mins).
ReplyDeleteAlso failed B. It hurts, especially because responding to office actions is what I do the most at work! Feel like they should have added a few marks to compensate for the horrible paper. Next year!
DeleteWhy is the feature "housefly eggs" punished differently in claim 1 and claim 5 of part B? Isn´t that a double punishment?
ReplyDeleteI am asking the same question but apparently nobody has the right answer
DeleteOnly the Committee knows... it is a mystery, and does not seem right. Or?
DeleteFailed B (unsurprisingly). Surprised that they were lenient for D1-1, including to candidates who did not have the technical issues (FR and DE papers), while they did not do anything for the highly unfair B. Kudos to anyone who passed B 2021 outright
ReplyDeleteI am a FR candidate and we did have the subject only in German!!
DeleteB was unfair to all candidates, and equally unfair for all. (At least largely... the markup of changes in the proposed claims was not the same in all languages.)
DeleteD1-1 was not equal for all candidates. EN and FR candidates affected with different severity (some got 0 minutes extra, some not), DE candidates getting 30 minutes for free without any need. Stress due to false start for EN and FR candidates, not for DE candidates. Assume that need for equal treatment could only be met by neutralizing that part in full.
RE:B!
Paper C was also just as horrible and the split completely threw me. Still - I am puzzled as to why I got zero marks - ok, I got the wrong CPA but I still got the combining document that taught the feature. I've provided arguments. I wouldn't expect 100% of the marks but 15-20% of the marks at least.
ReplyDeleteLooks like there may be grounds with Paper C. Worth sharing for those who want to appeal.
ReplyDeletePaper c seems worth appealing. I had an inventive step attack that covers both ranges in C6. Albeit its not a strong attack (as its partial priority) no marks seems a bit odd. It still covers the range in question so I would expect some marks.
DeleteI second this.
DeleteIf your attack cover both the partial ranges, I don't see why no marks are given to it. you probably wont get all the marks but zero marks is extremely harsh given the circumstances of the split and the horrendous formatting of claims we have to work with.
Paper C marking this year seems extremely harsh.
ReplyDeletethe subject matter ain't exactly accessible to all groups either. Its worse than the infamous cow paper.
DeleteYeah I agree. I'm slightly puzzled by the marking of Paper C. Seems pretty harsh. I got the wrong CPA but got the right combining document for some of them. Zero marks though. It is really that punishing if you don't agree with their CPA. I have provided reasons and if so, i should only lose marks for nit getting the right CPA but no marks for that claims is a bit devastating. Seems like they don't care about argumentation and only want a perfect fit which is BTW nothing to do with fitness to practice. In real Opposition, both parties and the board are flexible with arugmentations and appropriate documents.
DeleteI got 42 on C 2019 and 8 on C 2021.
ReplyDeleteThe EQE is officially a swizz.
I'm serious. Something is not quite right with the marking on paper C this year. I got some answers similar to the proposed solution but zero marks for it.
DeleteGiven how unkind wiselfow was to papers B and C (terrible formatting issues), I think it is worth an appeal. He Wiseflow browser affected these papers more than A and D. Also, wiseflow issues affect candidates differently.
DeleteI also think paper C marking is extreme and not awarding marks for credible solution should be a grounds to appeal.
I just can't believe it. There has really been no marks awarded as compensation for that lousy wiseflow browser. How unfair is that?! I managed 41 on B and would really have had a very good chance of getting over 50 in the written exam. Devastated :-(
ReplyDeleteIs there a possibility of appealing if no compensation was given for the lockdown browser? I was awarded 42 on paper B but I do not see any compensation for the technical difficulties that I had reported.
DeleteIf reported within 24 hours then I would say absolutely as they should consider this.
DeleteMaybe they did give some compensation? For example, by tolerant marking? But if so, why do they not communicate about it?
DeleteTolerant marking anyhow needed in view of the poor quality of the exam paper, irrespective of Wiseflow or not. Not at all the same character as before. Seems a ground for appeal to me: same character promise from the Supervisory Board strongly violated by this paper B, and paper also not clear and unambiguous, examiners' report neither.
Couldn't help but cry all evening after getting results. Scored 43, 44 and 46 on papers A, B and C. Would have passed if it were not for un-wise browser >:-O
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry. It's been such a tough year for candidates preparing for these exams. They have been very unkind to candidates this year with the papers.
DeleteIf your knowledge is sufficient, you will pass. If you're barely scraping by, that's on you...sorry, accept responsibility and try harder next year.
DeleteBe happy with 46 for C!
DeleteCan anyone tell me what's the time limit to appeal is and what things you need to write for the appeal. I'm thinking of appealing papers B and C. I know it is a very individual thing but if anyone has any common grounds of Appeal then please do share.
ReplyDeleteI plan to appeal based on wiseflow capabilities and for paper C, the harsh marking of CPA.
It is in the REE
DeletePaper C was a nightmare for me but I'm surprised that by the strict marking this year.
ReplyDeleteNo compensation or leniency despite the fact that I reported some wiseflow issues to them. I'm sure everyone else agree that claim formatting and copy and paste for papers B and C were terrible. The paper was also not adequately adapted at all for the split online.
Yep - really surprised by how harsh paper C Examiners were his year. At least when I look at my paper and their proposed solution, I get zero marks unless it is identical to it.
DeleteIf you are correct that it is identical, appeal will be successful. But are you sure?
DeleteA.
Yes, I wrote a very similar answer to the one in the proposed solution albeit the wording of technical effect and problem solution is not exactly the same, I used the correct reference (just phrased it differently). My argumentation for combining the prior art documents is not in the proposed solution but it is the correct documents according to their solution. My reasoning for combining is different to theirs so maybe not full marks but I don't seem to understand why no marks were given for it.
DeleteMy impression is that the papers were corrected by or at least also using a software.
ReplyDeletemaybe humans + software or something like that,
It could be! because the marks are very similar to each other, especialy for papaer C. It is such a harsh marking and from both examiners exactly same marks!???!!
DeleteHi John, I know one of the guys marking the Exams, and he is clearly a real person digging through the answers. Although I don't know the details, I would expect that the results are close due to a highly detailed marking sheet used by the members of the Examining Committe.
DeleteHi HF!
Deleteand thanks for the info. I checked many times my answer and still consider it is very strange what is going on.. Got 1P for claim 1 attack although it resembles almost word by word the model solution.. Maybe there was a little problem with printing the documents, maybe they didn't print the right documents or maybe they mixed them up.. my God, I don't even want to think too much.. and getting ZERO points for an IS combination which is not the model solution is also unusual. Maybe the "new eEQE" has also a "new marking principles" , anyway I'll probably not give it another try, maybe I'll file an appeal.. am so tired of this.. need a glas :)
Hi John, did the document that you received in May correspond to what you handed-in? If it was, and if you were not contradicting yourself in your answer, your attack to claim 1 should have scored high as -to quote you- "it resembles almost word by word the model solution"...
DeleteHi Roel. You mean the documents available for download in "My EQE", right?
DeleteThese ones seem to be the ones I had handed in with WISEFLOW.
I checked right now again and yes: claim 1 attack is there, I was using A3 2nd embodiment against it, all details done .. scored .. one little mark 🤨
And one more thing: in the B paper one gets punished with 4 marks by adding the houseflies in claim 1 and loses all marks ! when doing the same mistake in claim 5. Wasn't there a marking practice not to double penalise candidates for the same mistake? Does it make really sense to have two different "punishments" for the same mistake in the same exam ? I would say this is very odd.
Hi Roel and everybody .
DeleteAnonymous471122 June 2021 at 17:56 wrote above
that it might be that because I performed two attacks against claim 1, a good one and a bad one, I get points only for the bad attack.
Could that be true??
Didn't do as well as I hoped. Very embarrassed. Putting my family through hell again next year.
ReplyDeleteTry not to be too embarrassed, these are difficult exams!
DeleteDon't be embarrassed at all! The 2021 exams were unfair! No compensation apart from paper D for the wiseflow editor which caused me several marks lost! The search function did not work properly so that it could not be used reliably in paper c!!
Deleteits bad as my firm expected me to pass them all - I'm now on my own for retakes and future exams - no more help or support :(
DeleteArticle 24
ReplyDeleteAppeals
(1) An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Examination Board and the Secretariat which adversely affect the appellant, but only on the grounds that this Regulation or any provision relating to its application has been infringed.
(2) Notice of appeal including the statement setting out the grounds for appeal must be filed in writing with the Secretariat within one month of the date of notification of the decision appealed against. Notice of appeal shall not be deemed to have been filed until the fee for appeal specified pursuant to Article 17 has been paid within the period of one month specified above.
(3) If the Examination Board or the Secretariat considers the appeal to be admissible and well-founded, it shall rectify its decision and order reimbursement of the fee for appeal. If the appeal is not allowed within two months from notification of the decision, it shall be remitted to the Disciplinary Board of Appeal of the EPO. Notwithstanding Article 10(1) of the Regulation on discipline for professional representatives, the Disciplinary Board of Appeal shall take its decision in a composition consisting of two legally qualified members of the EPO and one professional representative. The Chairman shall be a legally qualified member.
(4) Part IV of the Regulation on discipline for professional representatives shall apply mutatis mutandis to the procedure before the Disciplinary Board of Appeal. If the appeal is admissible and wellfounded, the Board of Appeal shall set aside the decision appealed against. If the Board of Appeal allows the appeal, or the appeal is withdrawn, it shall order reimbursement in full or in part of the fee for appeal if this is equitable in the circumstances of the case.
(5) The lodging of an appeal shall not suspend the decision against which the appeal has been lodged.
Rule 9 IPREE
ReplyDeleteAppeal fee
Pursuant to Article 24(2) REE, the appeal fee shall amount to 600% of the basic fee.
Can file appeal together to save costs.
DeleteSo how much is it?
DeleteEUR 1200
Delete"If the Board of Appeal allows the appeal, or the appeal is withdrawn, it shall order reimbursement in full or in part of the fee for appeal if this is equitable in the circumstances of the case."
DeleteCan anyone tell me until what moment the appeal fee will be refunded in full if I withdraw my appeal?
If I withdraw after I am informed that the appeal is remitted to the Disciplinary Board of Appeal of the EPO?
Or only if earlier? When?
If I withdrawn when I receive summons for oral proceedings before the Disciplinary Board of Appeal of the EPO?
Or even later?
Hi! How to get into the list of professional representatives? I logged in Wise Flow (web version) but didn't find anything.
ReplyDeleteThank you
"Candidates successful in the 2021 European qualifying examination (EQE) will be able to request entry on the list of professional representatives before the EPO using the WISEflow platform (credentials as for the EQE). Detailed information will be provided in due course."
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to get a (more) detailed overview about the marks given... the exact distribution of marks would be helpful when filing an appeal... does anyone know? Comments are welcome! Thanks
ReplyDeleteThe breakdown should be on the second page of your results letter.
Deleteyes, but is there a more detailed overview... let's say how many points I attracted for each independent claim as such?!
DeleteIn view of the examiners´report for part B, are there possible reasons and arguments to appeal the results of part B?
ReplyDeleteEqually, any possible reasons and arguments to appeal the results of C. CPA deviation is the obvious one for my personal circumstances but hope to put in a few more arguments.
ReplyDeletePromised in "Information on the schedule for the EQE 2021 examination papers".
Deletehttp://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/66EB601464EC7BECC12586320050164F/$FILE/ExamPapers%20EQE%202021_EN.pdf
Quote: Paper C will have the same syllabus and character as before, but it will be split into two parts.“
Candidates were given the same number of documents to study for only 3 hours in 2021 in C1. It was 5.5 hours in total in 2019.
Promise not fulfilled.
I think there may be an argument that the novelty attack on claim 4 in paper C was not appropriate because, loosely speaking, a control system is not a structure. Therefore, it is not the structure that provides buckling resistance. This would mean that an inventive step attack starting from a different document would be more appropriate. I think a few people have discussed it in more detail, possibly in the paper C comments section.
DeleteSplit in paper C did adversely affect candidates - some are affected more than others. The EPO assumes that it equally affects everyone which is the wrong the approach to take. A perfect example is the overload of documents to read for C1 - if you are in your native language, you are more likely to read it quicker than a person who is not in their native language. Therefore, less time for analysis and writing. The claim formatting is also horrendous for paper C and that definitely affects candidates diffferently.
DeleteWorth Appealing against C this year. The subject matter and the confusion of the split was not good for non-mechanical person and non-native speakers.
DeleteAre statistics that Delta Patents usually publish as a blog post with number of sitters, pass rates, fail rates, average/ max score per paper available?
ReplyDeleteI do not believe so. As the EPO changed their format of distributing the results, sent individually now rather than a table listing all candidates answers, I doubt they can complete due to no visibility of results for candidates these days.
DeleteUnfortunately the EQE secretariat did not anymore publish the list of marks per EQEregnr that they published before, which was always the basis for our analysis.
DeleteWe can thus not provide any statistics anymore :(
In principle, the "Secretariat shall be responsible for compiling statistical information concerning the results of the examination and shall disseminate this information in compliance with Article 3(5)", Art. 22(3) REE, although the Supervisory Board may decide "to whom" the information is disseminated.
DeleteSo it might be too early to discount published results.
I am really impressive with my results in Paper C. I proposed the right attacks, but I also add other alternatives (as in the real life). My impression is that the alternative attacks have rested points. I have failed the Exam with corrects attacks in Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6. And other CPA well argument ed in claim 2 and 5. do you have the same experience?
ReplyDeleteAt least everyone else seems to know their mark! I just got a fail letter with no mark or mark breakdown. The helpdesk have acknowledged a "technical issue" with mine, but still to hear anything further! Incredibly frustrating.
ReplyDeleteI intend to file an appeal as my product claim for paper A attracted zero marks, despite being novel and, according to the mark scheme, worth at the very least 6 marks and arguably worth more.
ReplyDeleteHowever - under what grounds exactly do you file such an appeal? To which article(s) of REE do you refer in your submission? Please can someone help?
Just received an e-mail from the EPO saying that entry of new representatives to the list is going to be done via Wiseflow, at least for this year officially, but presumably for some time to come. So even if you pass the EQE, you're not free of that software.
ReplyDeleteby when can we appeal?
ReplyDelete1 month from notification of decision i.e. when results came out.
DeleteFrom the date of the decision until 1 momth from its notication
DeleteLetter dates 21/6/21, so 21/6/21 + 10d + 1m -> 1/7/21 + 1d -> 1/8/21 (Sunday) -> 2/8/21 (Monday)
Hi Roel,
ReplyDeleteI am a little bit confused about the marking scheme of C paper. I have correctly completed my attacks in the exam (including correct paragraph references from the prior arts) with an exception of referring to the actual features names in the corresponding claim, which I did not do during my training as well, because it is always obvious, especially in novelty attacks. Apparently, this is a big requirement in the answer in which I have lost %90 of my points. Do you think such a marking system is fair enough, because there is no clear deduction scheme in the Examiner's Report? or Should I try my chance in the Appeal?
Thank you very much in advance.
I forgot to indicate my name, it is Ezgi :)
DeleteHi Ezgi,
DeleteSee section 2 "General comments" of the Examiners' Report for Paper C:
>>
In candidate's answers, the use of information requires citation of the specific reference in
the relevant document (e.g. paragraph, line, claim, figure, as appropriate). If prior art uses
different terminology to the feature in a claim, a full reasoning requires an explanation why
the meaning is the same, on the basis of the information provided in the Annexes.
For example, in this year's paper the equivalence of terms such as "vessel" or "tank"
to the feature "reservoir" in the claims of Annex 1 was to be established based on the
properties listed in [0002] of Annex 1 (walls, compartment, water can be pumped in
and out).
<<
If you participated in our C Methodology course, you will have seen this in detail in the "Argumentation" and "How to get marks for argumentation" slides (see the example of the ball with the luminescent layer)
In an exam, you only get marks for what is explicitly on paper, not for what you think is obvious for you but not written...
Thanks a lot Roel.
DeleteEzgi
It is possible to appeal the result of paper B collectively? I'm still really mad how this paper was designed this year.
ReplyDeleteThe decisions awarding marks are individual decisions, so you will need to appeal them individually. You are of course free to align your appeals, but you cannot file a single appeal against a plurality of decisions. If you look to earlier appeals (D-decisions), you will see that the appeal decisions are also individual decisions, but that -where successful- the reasons are often "reused" by the DBA for the various decisions.
Delete