Good luck to all EQE 2022 candidates (main exam and Pre-Exam)!
We wish all candidates that will sit one or more EQE papers in the next two weeks good luck / bonne chance / gute Fahrt!
Our EQE blogs will be open for your comments and opinions w.r.t. the A, B, C and D main exam and the Pre-Exam paper immediately after the exams. We will post our (provisional) answers to the various papers in separate blog posts shortly after we have received copies of the exam papers. To facilitate the discussions, we will also post copies of the papers as soon as possible after we received reasonably clean copies.Do not post any comments as to the merits of the answers of a certain exam paper/flow on the blogs while an exam/flow is still ongoing. Also, do not post the invigilator password or anything else that may be considered a breach of the exam regulations, instructions to the candidates, code of conducts, etc (see, e.g., Online EQE website, myEQE and the emails from the EQE secretariat).
and our earlier EQE 2022 & 2021 blogs:
- "Detailed time schedule EQE 2022 available (Pre, C and D split into parts) & Info on Mock exams available (updated 13 January 2022)"
- "Mock A under exam conditions on 6 December 2021 (and on 3 Feb 2022)"
- "A paper in e-EQE 2021" [note: limited annotation is available in 2022 - but see here and FAQ]
- "Mock B under exam conditions on 2 December 2021 (and in 3 Feb 2022)"
- "B paper in e-EQE 2021" [note: strikethrough is available in the 2022 version; also limited annotation is available in 2022 - but see here and FAQ]
- "Mock C under exam conditions on 10 December 2021 - and on 21 December 2021 (and on 3 Feb 2022)"
- "Paper C split into two parts in e-EQE 2021"
- "Mock D under exam conditions on 2 December 2021 (and on 3 Feb 2022)"
- "Answering D (esp. DI questions) in the e-EQE platform (EQE2021)"
- "Answering the DII paper in the e-EQE platform (EQE 2021)" [note: limited annotation is available in 2022 - but see here and FAQ]
- "Pre-Exam Mock under exam conditions on 7 December 2021 - and on 3 February 2022"
- "The Pre-Exam in the e-EQE (EQE 2021)" [note: no calendars will be provided in 2022 - here; further, the screen layout has changed a bit]
Note that the Wiseflow Mocks are only available until 6 March 2022 (We assume to prevent any possible confusion between Mocks and real EQE flows)! So if you want to do some further testing in Wiseflow, do not wait until the day before your exam paper!
For Pre-Exam and D candidates:
Be reminded that as of the this EQE, "calendars will no longer be provided to candidates as part of the examination papers for the pre-examination and Paper D. A notice listing the dates on which the EPO filing offices are closed is published each year in the Official Journal. For the purposes of applying Rule 134(1), first sentence, EPC and Rule 80.5 PCT, candidates should refer to the relevant notice on EPO closing days. They will be able to access the EPO website for this during the exam. Candidates are allowed to use their own calendar to identify dates falling on a Saturday or Sunday."
You may want to refer to our dedicated blog post here and to the Notice from the Examination Board dated 19 November 2021.
All candidates, as well as tutors who helped candidates prepare for EQE 2022, are invited to contribute to the discussions on our EQE blogs (General, A, B, C and D , Pre-Exam)! You can post your comments in English, French or German. You are invited to post your comments under your real name, but it is also possible to use a nickname if you wish to hide your identity.
The DeltaPatents team
SHARE:
How come this guy thinks he is funny?
ReplyDeletesince you grilled them for 15 mins, what if they barbequed you by telling you the wrong result :P. don't feed the trolls.
ReplyDelete@anonymous 16:02 - providing a reason for a negative action is fairly widely accepted as a social obligation, even if the end result doesn't change. Heck, the EPO could save a lot of time prepping exam reports if they just bought a big red 'refused' stamp.
ReplyDeleteHave just tried this, and they'll give you your results if you're calling from the number they have on file for you, AND you give your candidate number
ReplyDeleteI guess the poster was trying to encourage lots of people to phone the EQE after results. Which I supposed might help get across the point that a lot of people are very annoyed. It does seem still that the EQE genuinely don't understand that these results are significant and that it's not OK to just string people out without any explanation.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, it's not as if candidates contributing to this blog could be any more irritated/stressed, so a misleading post probably doesn't do much harm.
I'll go with my guess: The committee realized last minute they have to neutralize some question / aspect somewhere in one of the paper. Then, they cannot simply add the amount of points to all and just send the results. I think they have to recheck all papers with a newly calculated result close to 45 or 50 points, and carefully see if they should compensable fail / pass those papers or not, preventing unfair fails (and too many appeals...). I guess such process can take quite some time. Anyway, I hope that we will know in the end what happened...
ReplyDeleteSeems like a reasonable guess. But that's inexcusably poor because: (a) another problem with the paper - really? Their sole job is to set and mark a handful of exam papers - how can they make such a mess of it; and (b) how last minute - assuming that it didn't occur today, they should have sent out an explanation and revised release data much earlier.
DeleteSeriously? Did they just give pass/fail or a full breakdown of results?
ReplyDelete@mark k: what number did you call?
ReplyDeleteThe EQE helpdesk was only open between 14:00 and 15:30 hrs today. The posters above who claim to have "just" called the helpdesk to receive their results are obviously lying
DeleteGhostbusters
DeleteSomeone else has tried to get results by phone ?
ReplyDeleteI think the posters above are just trolling the candidates. I tried calling them at (+49 89) 2399 5155 but they are not reachable outside designated hours on the website.
ReplyDeleteIs 15th July the same date at which the consultation for the new exam format closes? I wonder if these two things are somehow related.....
ReplyDeleteYes that is the day the new consultation ends.
DeleteDear Anonymous28 June 2022 at 15:07, to give birth is the biggest sacrifice a woman does in life; a sacred act to give one soul the possibility to live on Earth. You have to be proud of yourself. Don't give a f...k about these results, just forget them as it's more important to not stress, to be calm and loving.
ReplyDelete(I’m also stressed as my carrier development depend on these results, but as I was resitting some of the EQE exams, now I know, that it’s doable, and that there are more important things in life than to become an EPA, as for example to have close, loving people around, to give birth to a child, to have adventures and experience in different fields, to be relaxed, pacified and joyfull.
Best regards
ha, ha. I agree
ReplyDeletesome people even suspect that epo has data problems and assume that they are trying to recover data because it was lost... ridiclous nonsense. however, epo should be careful that it doesn't become a joke.
ReplyDeleteI have the impression that they have some kind of problem/s and prefer to give a big delay, but the results will be available much earlier, as soon as the problem ends
ReplyDeleteEarlier today, candidates received the following email:
ReplyDeleteDear candidate,
Please be informed that the results of the EQE 2022 main examination will be available soon. We expect to provide them by 15 July 2022.
All candidates will be informed by email once the results are available on myEQE.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincères salutations
European Qualifying Examination EQE
European Patent Office
80298 Munich | Germany
Tel. +49 (0)89 2399 5155 (Mon, Wed-Fri 09.00-11.00 hrs, Tues 14.00-15.30 hrs)
Fax +49 (0)89 2399 5140
helpdesk@eqe.org
www.epo.org
Based and EQE-pilled
ReplyDelete😂👏👏
ReplyDeleteTo anon 21:11: was that quoted from your results letter? :-D
ReplyDeleteRESULTS ARE ON MY-EQE NOW. They seem not to have notified candidates by email yet, but they are available if you log on.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of trolling in this thread is unprecedented
DeleteAfter yesterday, that really would be final confirmation that someone at the EQE is having a laugh if they were released today.
Deletethey aren't though are they.
DeleteSame here, I've just logged on to check and the results letter is there. But not in date order on the list of documents so I nearly missed it at first
DeleteReally? What date do they have?
Deletewhy are people lying about this? it's weird.
DeleteWake up Chris, you shat yourself
ReplyDeleteHey, you. You're finally awake.
DeleteIf people continue like this on this forum, deltapatents will have to change the format of their platform for the future.
DeleteSad and tells one about the kind of calibre of candidates who passed the pre-eqe last year.
Perhaps people are just venting their frustrations with the EQE secretariat elsewhere, because we have no way to hold them accountable
DeleteYes, this tells of the cailbre of candidates! The EQE itself tells of the IT calibre of candidates!!!
ReplyDeleteEmployer/Tutor: so you want to become a EPA eh?
ReplyDeleteApplicant: yes
E/T: you do know about the EQE don't you?
Applicant: you mean the eEQE
E/T: ah..yes eEQE...so, can you type?
Applicant: um, yes
E/T: with more than 2 fingers?
Applicant: um yes, I'm a hobby gamer - I can use 4 fingers minimum!
E/T: great, then I expect you'll be qualified within a year!
Applicant: ??
Ahh. Another day of periodic refreshing the MyEQE site.
ReplyDeletego touch grass
DeleteI just do not understand why they cannot provide a reason for the delay. Some people have been told it is a "technical issue". They gave some candidates the same reason last year. I wish they would be more transparent and understanding about the fact that candidates have been waiting since March for this and deserve to be treated with respect and provided with information.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that they cannot provide a reason, they clearly just feel that they can get away without providing a reason - what will candidates do about it? It's irritating, but fairly standard for cossetted, inefficient public-sector organisations.
Delete"Can get away with" sounds like the EPO was legally bound to issue the results by day X. I am also curious to know but let's be honest, there are little to no implications of knowing now vs. knowing in 2 weeks. They will have proper reasons to delay it, it is certainly no scheme to torture candidates. And almost everyone in the exam committee does this on the side, right? It is not their primary occupation.
DeleteMaybe for you, but I have a job offer that’s contingent on exam passes, so obviously it matters a great deal for me.
DeleteI'm in a similar situation re the job offer. And it's also worth anon@18:27 bearing in mind that a lot of the people affected by this current delay (myself included) are people who were also affected by the year delay caused by the EQE cancelling the 2020 exams.
DeleteThe exam system, one set of exams a year and wait 4 months for results, is already almost unbearably outdated and inappropriate. Hence why further delays, even of a fortnight, let alone a year, are so inflammatory.
At Anonymous30 June 2022 at 18:27 - I would not go to the extent of saying there are no implications for the delay in result announcement. It is 15 days more of uncertainty and 15 more days eaten away from a candidate's ability to build a successful appeal case. Considering number of overturned decisions regarding paper B from 2021, they should know better. But serving the candidate's interests is not in the interest of EPO at large, but serving the Applicant or Assignee's interest does.
DeleteIt seems too much of a coincidence that the new results deadline of 15 July coincides with the close date for the consultation on the next exam format. My guess is that the EQE are delaying releasing results just to avoid disgruntled candidates from this year feeding back negative views into the consultation.
ReplyDeleteDon't think this is the reason. I called them firstly (before the e-mail) and they said they would provide the results before 15 July. Also its not a technical issue as technical issues take a day or two at most. E.g. last year there was a technical issue so results came one workday later, also the examiners reports came before the results.
DeleteThis year the examiners reports were withdrawn from babylon, so probably some issues when the ex.com. were deciding pass/fail on the exams (last week) they may have decided to adjust the marking schemes of one or more of the exams (e.g. paper A) to do more justice to the candidates.
However this is just speculation. When i called them last week they didnt want to give any reason more than "we work as fast as we can" and "we have no reason to tell you why its delayed".
Surely they can't adjust the marking scheme at a late stage - that would involve remarking all the papers? Presumably that's why their favoured approach is just neutralising dodgy questions.
DeleteEither way, communicating the change at such late notice is just unacceptably shoddy.
Yes, i guess they just neutralize some questions at this late stage. Hence the delay.
DeleteI see no reason why the EQE organization would act in bad faith, as suggested by Anonymous 30 June 2022 at 13:20 at the beginning of this thread. Please remain reasonable and fair - a blog is not a platform to be impolite or rude, and anonymous comments of such a type will not be accepted.
DeleteDoes anyone have copies of what was uploaded to Babylon? Do you know if it was for all papers or just some?
DeleteMost likely, something in the general process of compiling the results and editing the letters has never been automated properly, and carefully entering manual inputs for each candidate should take quite some time.
ReplyDeleteThat would be assuming they had said that the results were coming out *on* the 15th.. they just said "soon" and "expected" before the 15th....
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that is extremely frustrating, is that last year - we did get an indication in the Confirmation letter, that "results are expected to be available in myEQE in July". If they would state the same thing this year, there would much less stress and drama overall. But noooo, some smartypants though it is a great idea to change the forecast to "June". And now, whoever had planned some holidays for second half of July - will have to travel to the beach with a laptop etc., in order to be able to draft an appeal, if things go bad. Bravo EPO, bravo
ReplyDeleteJesus, Mary and Joseph and the wee donkey, can we just move this thing along before it drives us all round the bloody bend?
ReplyDeleteIt is in everybody's interest, in that of candidates as well in that of the EQE secretariat, the EQE Committees as well as the Examination Board, to have the results early.
ReplyDeleteIt is in everybody's interest that the process and the outcome is reliable and correct.
As it has been the trend the last year to have the results out in late June, it seems fair to assume that that was also the intention this year (note that 10-15 years ago, they only came late August). That that was not met suggests that an issue popped up late in the process. The announcement from earlier this week that it may still take another 3 weeks also indicate so. Maybe something came to the attention of the Examination Board late? Or the handling of complaints has to be done again? There are many things that could cause a delay.
It is no fun to wait, but if waiting results in, e.g., less need for appeal (with appeals often resulting in a decision only after a year, after the next EQE), what would you choose?
In 2021, many appeals were filed for various reasons, see http://eqe-b-em.blogspot.com/2021/03/paper-b-e-eqe-2021-jury-is-still-out.html#comment-form (Click "Read more" several times to see the appeals -- they came online until June this year)...
DeleteWith respect though Roel, I'm not going to try that sort of reasoning on a client next time I'm late with a piece of work. I have a mortgage to pay.
DeleteInstead, I'm going to do as I'm professional obliged to do, and keep them informed in good time of the status of their work and likely delays, and in the rare event of any delays, I'll provide a decent explanation and an apology.
I am curious too about the reason for the delay... But not sharing the reason with us does not imply that the delay is not justifiable, so I am assuming that there is a good reason - there is no indication to the contrary.
DeleteI do not think it is reasonable to compare fully electronic exam, with answers in uniform font, to the times when they were handled full in paper. You don't have to scan the papers or struggle in trying to read bad handwriting and things randomly crossed out etc. And if we don't know what kind of issue it is - we cannot even estimate if this issue has impact on my results or not. Should we be hopeful for additional point, or it happened in a paper different from the one we took, so there is no real "gain" to hope for, only a delay. We do not know anything. The whole anger is not on the thing that they are now trying to solve a difficult case, that popped up late. The problem is in how they are handling it, giving us only vague excuses. You could have holiday plans, you could be in a recrutation procces, you could just wait for a promotion at work, you could try to land a client who want and EQE qualified EPA to work with. All that is currently on hold.
DeleteSomeone wrote in EQE telegram group that the delay (according to her tutor attending a eqe meeting about the new format) is because they are handling 900 appeals since it will determine final points for each exam.
DeleteDoesn't sound logical though since they must have been aware of the appeals before end of june. But who knows.
Very much agree with the comments. Although the delay is somehow unfortunate, the more important aspect should be the quality of the EQE and the problems such as printing errors and the completly arbitrary solutions in the Examiners reports. B 2021 is certainly the best example and it affected many candidates. So, one would really hope that the delay is due to reconsideration of A 2022 because otherwise there should be expected a similar amount of appeals, which is unfair to the candiates and a lot of extra work for the EPO.
Delete@Anonymous 1 July 2022 at 16:09:
DeleteAppeals? Only possible after decision. So not yet.
Possibly complaints? Were to be filed immediately. More likely. But 900? So many?
MK
@Anonymous4 July 2022 at 09:31
DeleteYes, probably complaints. 900 is not that much, some people filed complaints for several of the exams. Also a complained could be filed for as little as a short disturbance in wiseflow.
However, i dont get how they couldn't had noticed and taken these into account before last week in june. This makes me wonder whether they are re-arranging/neutralizing marks for any of the exams, probably A.
It looks possible that part of the difference in opinion regarding the EQEs conduct between posters here is differences in the respective professional expectations to which those posters are subjected.
ReplyDeleteMy perception, which I'm sure will be refuted, is that a couple of decades ago patent attorneys, like many professionals, could get away with treating clients with distain from their ivory towers, having their PAs filter phone calls, billing by the hour, and expecting gracious deference from clients. Whereas today's candidates cannot get away with any of that, yet that appears to be how the EQE continues to behave with candidates.
Urgent need for a new R-Book: How to await EQE Results without going crazy
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know the reason of such delay in the results?
ReplyDeleteNo, but wait for the 1984-esque reasoning, about how a decade ago the results once came out in August, so if you think about it that way these results aren't actually late, they're early, for which we should all be profusely grateful to the EQE.
DeleteThey "expect" to provide the result by 15 July.
DeleteMany surprises can still happen.
Prediction: Bonus 5 marks for all for paper A or pass rate reduced as such.
ReplyDeleteWell I kinda wish they didn’t reduce the “pass rate”…
DeleteThis was done for a UK exam (FD4 2018) - pass rate was reduced from 50% to 47% due to "a statistically significant fall in the pass rate for the examination compared to the mean pass rate".
Delete*pass mark
DeleteAnon 1 July: "900 appeals"? I don't think so! 900 complaints maybe!
ReplyDeletewhy are they messing up the eEQE so badly, that they need extra months to mark? What a disaster!
ReplyDeleteI expect that a lot of the complaints were due to the online format/Wiseflow problems.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem to raise the question of whether online is definitely the best format long-term, instead of paper exams in a physical centre.
On the one hand, online exams have an advantage of reduced hassle for candidates having to turn up to an exam centre.
But, on the other hand, the Wiseflow editor seems overly complex and unreliable, and personally I found the relentless barrage of increasingly hysterical emails from the EQE urging candidates to sit mocks and practice with Wiseflow to be stressful and irritating, and just generally more of a burden on the candidate.
Added to that, I have a slightly dodgy internet connection, electricity supply, and printer at home, so i had to borrow a spare printer from somebody, and buy a UPS, and but a webcam, and have a backup phone ready to hotspot. Again, all of which caused a hell of a lot of extra hassle and stress (and expense).
So personally, overall I prefer the exam centre format. Yes, there's a bit more hassle on the day, but less hassle and candidate-blaming in the run up. You turn up, sit the exam, and go home. If there's technical problems, everybody is equally affected, and it's someone else's problem to fix.
Additionally, particularly when I was a new trainee, I found the exam week a bit of a pilgrimage, and I feel that new trainees are missing out on something by not attending exams in person.
Let's be honest, the EQE aren't sticking with the online format because they think it's a better examination format; they're doing it because it's easier and cheaper for them.
But now they are even proposing complete reformulation of the exam papers to suit the online format, which feels a lot like the tail wagging the dog.
So is the online format better, or should the EQE revert to exam centres? Personally, I'd prefer to revert to exam centres.
Think online format is a no brainier but Wiseflow is simply not suitable for the EQEs. PEB exams were done in MS Word and (somewhat dodgy but seemingly effective) proctoring software was used to ensure no cheating. Perhaps the EQE could go in a similar direction.
Delete"Let's be honest, the EQE aren't sticking with the online format because they think it's a better examination format; they're doing it because it's easier and cheaper for them"
DeleteEasier and cheaper means it *is* better, as far as the Examination Board is concerned.
I, too, would have preferred the "pilgrimage" to an exam centre (particularly as I live in one of the cities that was always an exam centre) but the old-style written exams are not going to come back.
I am really sorry for the resitters who are taking this EQE after 2019. First came the 2020 cancellation. Thereafter, came an online exam of 2021 where things were far from certain. The pressure was different for resitters compared to the first time exam sitters in 2021. And then came EQE 2022 for which we are still waiting for results. This must have been quite a stressful period of life, bombshell after bombshell. Add COVID on top of it along with adjusting to this hybrid work format and god knows the personal situations of these candidates. Stay strong those who belong to this category. You were forged by some tough situations.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous 4 July 2022 at 14:20
ReplyDeleteBeing one of those persons, I can fully underline the correct points you made. Seeing our professional life as kind of symbiosis with the EPO, the EPO could use the EQE to make a good impression on the future representatives as a start to this relationship. However, and at the same time recognizing all the challenges the EPO likewise had to face,
the organization chose to behave differently or does not even care at all.
I too am in this god-forsaken, dark place. The colleagues in my law firm simply say: "so still not passed the EQE?" They are oblivious to the unfairness to candidates between 2020-2022. Sure the EQE committee doesn't give a monkey's uncle about that- why should they? Their too far up their own sunlight-vacuum tubes to care! Hooray, we have a new president!! Let's all party!!
ReplyDelete... aaand I think we just found the reason for the postponement: Two weeks of EPO-internal festivities for the inauguration of their old and new roi soleil.
DeleteFestivities? Or demonstations? http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/06/23/demonstration-epo-staff-during-meeting-about-re-election-president-campinos/
DeleteI just wonder whether the EQE exam board will do anything on Paper B, as the paper B of year 2022 is so much biased against the candidates with a bio/chemicstry training background, which directly contradicts the exam regulations EPO put in place!
ReplyDeleteI doubt it, unfortunately.
DeleteHelp me pass my EQE exams, Ziyyara
ReplyDeleteLast thing we want on this thread is these spams. We already have enough trolls here hallucinating their results.
ReplyDeleteany further updates regarding the results/examiner reports?
"We already have enough trolls here hallucinating their results."
ReplyDeleteI almost spat out my coffee at that!
The EQE results have just flown over my house!!!
ReplyDeleteHopefully paper A is corrected in the updated version of examiners report.
ReplyDeleteI saw the Examination Secretariat at a grocery store in Los Angeles yesterday. I told them how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for photos or my results in a timely manner or anything.
ReplyDeleteThey said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?”
I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but they kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing their hands shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard them chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw them trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen Milky Ways in his hands without paying.
The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Examination Secretariat you need to pay for those first.” At first they kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter.
When she took one of the bars and started scanning it multiple times, one of the members stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “to prevent any electrical infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After she scanned each bar and put them in a bag and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly. Then they sent an email with the subject line "EQE main Examination Results" but the subject of the email was to inform us of a delay. There wasn't even an apology or reason given. Then they walked out of the store to celebrate the reelection of their foul-mouthed President.
Nice to see another mongolian basket weaving enthusiast here :^)
Deletehi, I have received a letter from secretary EQE. It was in relation my paper C: "The Examination Board has considered your feedback/complaint. No
ReplyDeletecompensation has been awarded as the time you had for writing your
exam has not been affected." subject :others". Keep calm if you receive this letter. Is not the results
Thanks for the headsup. Would you mind sharing the nature of your complaint? e.g. wiseflow problems etc.
DeleteBasically technical issues; in this case I had many problems to submit first part in CI. I couldn't have lunch and print the papers for the CII.I did second part without having lunch and without papers printed, and with high stress. They don't consider this could affect my second part.
ReplyDeleteCAP, sorry to hear that you will not be awarded compensation (although I hope it will not be required anyway!). I was in the same situation and it was very frustrating and worrying at the time. Anyway, it is good to hear that things appear to be moving along with the results process.
ReplyDeleteHi, I saw my results of 2022 in my eEQE just now. (am not troll) wish everyone good luck!
ReplyDeleteI have received the results as well..but without informing email...does anyone know if we will also receive a copy of the marked papers?
ReplyDeleteYou should have a breakdown of the marks on page 2 of your results letter; you should also have a download (or be able to download) a copy of what you submitted. You do not receive a "marked" version of your script.
DeleteYES! Results are in MyEQE!!!
ReplyDeleteMy result is out
ReplyDeleteSomething is not right with the letter. Papers A and C marks seems completely off.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "completely off"? The front page marks don't add up with the mark break down or unexpectedly low?
Deleteunexpectedly low but also the breakdown marks don't total with the front page.
DeleteDoesn't make much sense. Especially for paper A, 5 independent claims and 4 achieving 0 marks? Doesn't make much sense here. I'm sure there were claims to them albeit not perfect but achieving 0 marks means there must be something else. I refer to DP solution - it doesn't look like DP would pass too.
Well, mine as well. This is going to be quite interesting.
DeleteThey wanted 5 separate independent claims in paper A???? Not right here. Even DP solution wouldn't predicted that and would have also failed.
ReplyDeleteIs there some kind of template for an appeal?
DeletePaper A marks are extremely harsh. 5 independent claims - 0 marks? Don't get it either. Even if you make it dependent on a novel claim, it should still be novel.
DeletePersonally I wouldn't bother with an appeal. I appealed last year, unsuccessfully.
DeleteThe main issue you'll experience is that the DBA will only consider appeal points relating to "serious and obvious" errors in the EB's marking. There's no definition of what either 'serious' or 'obvious' means, so it's just so easy for the DBA to say an appeal point doesn't get across the hurdle.
And appeals end with the DBA - there's no higher appeal board for EQE appeals. And they know that, and are thus a law unto themselves.
So as said, personally I think that filing an appeal will be just a stressful waste of time and money. I wouldn't do it again.
if you're within 42-45 range or 47-49 range, they should look at this and consider IT issues. I don't think they have sufficiently so wouldn't that be seen as an obvious error. Its clear that they were in a rush at the end and may not review this properly.
DeleteWell the onus is on the Appellant to demonstrate that a serious and obvious error has occurred. If you don't get over that hurdle the DBA won't even consider the merits of the arguments.
DeleteIt absolutely wouldn't be good enough to speculate that IT issues might have constituted an infringement of the REE/IPREE.
I appealed last year on objectively good points, to any reasonable person they were clear cut instances where the EB had made errors, but the DBA just dismissed them at the first hurdle as not being 'serious and obvious'.
how long did you have to wait until you heard from your appeal?
DeleteWell that's another thing - I filed the appeal August 2021, and waited until end-Feb 2022 and still hadn't heard anything.
DeleteSo I chased like hell, and they begrudgingly issued a negative preliminary decision and a summons to OP about a week before the 2022 exams. But if I hadn't chased, I expect they would still not have looked at it now.
Even if you do file an appeal, there's almost no chance you'll hear back this year. So you'll have to pay and prep for the resit anyway. If you're very lucky you might hear back before the resit exam, but you honestly can't count on that.
So all in all, my view is, unfortunately and disgracefully, that appealing is pointless.
If all they are looking for Is obvious error then I truly do not understand why it takes them that long.
DeleteEven for borderline candidates. It can simply be a remark which should not take the whole year. It is a disgrace the way candidates are being treated by the EPO
Paper C marks doesn't look right either. Something is not right at all. Lots of appeals coming. Unless, these are not the right "results" letter...
ReplyDeleteFunny feeling about these results. Need to see solutions.
ReplyDeleteNeed to appeal. This is rubbish.
ReplyDeleteThe results are available. I did not receive an e-mail yet, however I can see my results in my-eqe.
ReplyDeleteThe "other" letter mentioned that I got some compensation marks but its so random. They've done it so that I just failed. Only need 1 more mark to pass. Does anyone have marks compensated and if so, how are these being awarded. The difference of loss time cannot be made up by just 1 or 2 marks as it affects people differently. It could be 3-5 marks so I think its fairer to award 5 marks uniformly.
ReplyDeleteummm. Its not adding up for me either. Paper A looks extremely low. For paper C, there is 27 marks for just 1 claim. That's completely moving away from other previous years. I thought they meant to keep the same format as before.
ReplyDeleteI never seen in my life an examination that need much more time to issue results than to prepare it
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but this year does not feel right. Why would paper A suddenly have 5 independent claims. This was not in previous years and completely outside scope of "maintaining current format of papers". Also, 5 independent claims - plurality of independent claim objections. They are not following their own rules.
ReplyDeleteA colleague just told me that the results are available in his my-eqe. I can also download my results letter in my-eqe. I passed :)
ReplyDeleteFor sure, paper A doesn't seem right at all.
ReplyDeleteThe email last week was poor. However, seeing as everyone else is hating on the EPO, thought it might be fun to offer a positive opinion...
ReplyDeleteI thought the exams were an acceptable difficulty this year, and felt that the Wiseflow system was adequate (although I think the split in C still needs some work).
My marks also look weird for A (I passed, but out of 5 independent claims, I got 0 on three and full marks on 1). But I don't think there's anything wrong with there being 5 independent claims per se - real patents can have 5 independent claims, so why can't the exam?
Remember also that (I think) they don't decide on the mark scheme until after the exams, so when they wrote C they may not had intended for there to be so many marks on a single claim (or so many indy claims in A). It would only be after having seen some real scripts that they made those decisions.
Finally, I think that the timing of the results is reasonable. Much quicker than the UKs, for example.
Of course, I passed, so maybe it's just rose-tinted glasses for me.
...or maybe everyone who failed is wearing their poo-tinted glasses. Who can say.
DeleteI am curious because I have never seen that in real patents:
DeleteIsn`t it that you run into unity problems with as much as 5 independent claims?
Mostly, you have a product, a process and a use claim.
I found it extremely unfair that they awarded ZERO marks if your method claim is dependent on the apparatus features. You may not get full marks but the method claim is at least novel so to give zero marks (where previous years, you are expected to incorporate apparatus features in method of manufacturing) is difficult to accept.
DeleteI wrote claims to method of making pulp, method of making paper but got zero marks - I don't understand why. Sure, I wouldn't expected to get full marks but my claim is not too far off from the solution just posted. It may be narrow for some or broad for others but it is novel by virtue of adding the stamping machine features. Not sure here at all about paper A.
ReplyDeleteI think you should appeal. Write to Exam Sec to see if there has been a mistake first though.
DeleteExamination Reports have been published.
ReplyDeleteHi DP - according to your paper A solution, the method of making paper pulp using stamper machine according to any one of the preceding claims achieves NO MARKS from the EPO (based on their solution). This is what I got. I struggle/fail to understand their rationale on this. The claim would still be novel so to receive zero marks is hard to stomach.
ReplyDeleteTo have dependency on apparatus features seems ok in all previous years apart from this year. Really DO NOT understand! Its becoming a guessing game as to what the EPO will decide to give marks and its not consistent with previous years. How can one prepare?
DeleteHI DP - it does seem your solution would not have passed paper A by reading the paper A model answer as your claim to a method of making pulp would achieve zero marks. Very strange.
DeleteThere is a point here. Either we've and DP missed something or the EPO has some sort of explanation. I would love for someone to explain. I basically got a similar claim to DP solution but ended up with zero marks. I don't understand it either so maybe someone can let me know.
DeleteHi, I also drafted a method claim of making paper pulp using the stamper machine as claimed before, but I at least got 8 points for this method claim. Maybe you could quickly ask EQE secretary to check if they mess up your answers... I think DP solution will actually pass, as DP can get 28 pts for the stamper, 8-13 pts for the method of making pulp, 4 pts for making paper, 4-10 pts for paper, 20 pts for dependent claims and description. Add up 28+8+4+4+20 = 64 pts. Even if DP loses a bit points by the stamper, dependent claims and descripiton, I still have confidence on DP that DP can still safely pass 2022-A ;-)
DeleteI don't agree with the model paper A solution on "method of making paper pulp either". If you refer to apparatus features, its zero marks. That seems incredibly harsh and I've seen loads of examples of methods being novel by dependent on novel apparatus. Some mark deduction but zero marks is extremely unfair, especially with these exams which do not reflect real life at all.
DeleteIf you look at the candidate's answer provided on the EQE website, this candidate also drafts a method claim of making paper pulp by referring back to the stamper machine. Obviously, this candidate passed with good scores (otherwise won't be chosen as example here). So... maybe referring back to the machine is not the main problem in your method claim!
ReplyDeleteMy claim is very similar to the model claim except that it refers to the apparatus features. Also in the solution in says
DeleteA claim to the use of the (especially adapted) apparatus does not appear to afford
any additional patent protection over the apparatus claim itself, and therefore it
received no marks.
018] One of our inventors, Mr D. Séchard, first thought that these drawbacks could be tackled by adding the glue to the pulp directly in the vat of the stamper machine during beating. However, beating the pulp together with the glue resulted in a sharp increase in the viscosity of the mixture, hindering the circulation and homogeneous treatment of the pulp. The paper pulp obtained in this way was found to be unsuitable for our purposes.
ReplyDeleteThis is in the text, therefore you must refer to the apparatus with angles other than 90 to obtain the technical effect.
The Epo get it wrong.
I agree. i think the EPO has got this one wrong. It doesn't seem right
DeleteThat's what I thought. If normal stamper beating is said explicitly to be unsuitable, you must refer to the features of the inventive stamper machine. In the Examination Report it is said "The homogeneous intermixing of the glue in the paper pulp needed according to the
Deleteclient’s technology can be achieved by any means that ensure the required degree of pulp circulation during stamper beating (over 90% of pulp volume swept or displaced with each stroke), which can be verified by simple, known tests (measurement of viscosity differences throughout the pulp volume) as described in [023]". But this is surely a 'result to be achieved' claim when we are told the traditional stamper beating method is unsuitable.
I really don't agree with EPO solution on this one. I think they are either trying to change the scope of the exam this year or make a point. I agree with [018] text here. The EPO has not got this right this year and better that they come out and correct it before everyone files appeals.
DeleteThis is in the text, therefore you must refer to the apparatus with angles other than 90 to obtain the technical effect.
DeleteThis is also why I referred back to the stamper machine features otherwise, how do you get the 90% viscosity. I'm struggling to understand the EPO's solution on this point.
Paper A is definitely worth appealing even if you are some marks off. I don't believe method of making a pulp requires raw material without lignin.
ReplyDeleteLignin: [008] is somewhat ambiguous and could be interpreted as being inherent to raw plant material itself. Therefore, there is no need to put in lignin-free in method claim as this could be seen as inherent. Is what someone would argue during prosecution so I think marks should not be taken away from not including lignin due to its ambiguity. DP also mentions this in their original post.
Paper A solution don't tally up here. there is enough ambiguity but it doesn't look like alternatives were really considered. I also completely am baffled by their reasoning of not including the apparatus features in method of making pulp. I understand that it is required to achieve the technical effect of 90% viscosity and therefore, you must have the deviating angle, which means you need some apparatus features. It seems bizarre how a normal stamper machine can achieve this when the problem has been that standard stamper machines are not good enough to achieve the desired result.
ReplyDelete90% of the pulp volume is swept i meant. Surely you need the apparatus features to achieve this. Otherwise, the method won't work without it
DeleteI wonder if the EPO has done this deliberately and move away from DP solution to prove a point.
ReplyDeleteI agree with others above - stamper beating using the stamper machine of the apparatus features achieves the 90% pulp circulation. No other stamper machine can do this so pointless to make it broad (not limit it to specific features) as the skilled person would find that the invention is not fully enabled.
Anyone know how to appeal and what to submit. Please share
ReplyDeleteIts difficult to understand the EPO rationale on the method claims for Paper A. Any experienced tutors/Attorneys would like to comment. I don't see why having apparatus claim would score you zero or close to zero. I'm incredibly confused by this. At best, I would of said you'll lose a few marks but how can the technical effect of the method claim be achieved without the relevant apparatus features. It's already clear from [008] that normal stamper machine don't work to give the optimal result. Someone please explain the EPO solution to method of making pulp with any machine stamper as it doesn't make any sense to me...
ReplyDeleteYou clearly need the deviation of 90 degrees to create the 90% pulp spreading effect in the method claim as well. I also don't understand the EPO solution and I think they have got this one badly wrong.
DeleteClear and obvious error in the solution?
ReplyDeleteReferring to the technical feature that gives you the desired 90% pulp circulation (I.e the stamper machine claim) should not be penalised. Its what the EPO want you to do as you don't have enabling examples that it works with adding glue to normal stamper machine and achieve 90% pulp circulation. I think you're right about the EPO solution being wrong here. I don't see how you can achieve the 90% circulation method without referring to the relevant apparatus feature
(018) does disclose that making pulp with glue does not work with standard stamper machine. It does say this in the paper. So it won't work with any other stamper machine apart from the machine of the invention
ReplyDeleteTherefore, the method claim should reflect this accordingly.
I barely managed to pass paper A. Decided to list down some issues that I see with the examiner report. I think one can consider these point when filing an appeal.
ReplyDeleteNot commenting under Paper A blog as I see this one is more active.
Independent Claim (method of making paper pulp) 28 Marks
- "Lignin" is mentioned at three instances in Paper A (1)"Wood also contains substances other than cellulose, such as lignin." (2)"This is due to the short cellulose fibres of ground wood and the inherent acidity of lignin" (3) "we only
use raw plant material such as flax, hemp, straw, hay, thistles or nettles, or mixtures thereof, which does not contain lignin."
One can derive from the above disclosure that wood contains lignin and the plant raw material does not contain lignin.
The examiner report conveniently changed the syntax of statement (3) to suit their interpretation. "Only raw plant material which does not contain lignin, such as flax, hemp, straw, hay, thistles or nettles, or mixtures thereof (lignin-free raw plant material) is used". Also, in exam paper "only" is a placement modifier which used before the verb "use". In the examiner report, "only" is defined with respect to the plant raw material.
According to the examiner report "Each missing essential feature, such as not limiting the starting material to lignin-free raw plant material, or not excluding wood and cotton/linen cloth rags, received a 10-mark deduction."
so even if one mentioned plant raw material but not lignin-free raw plant material, he/she ended up losing 10 marks. Even the model candidate answer does not specify lignin free. This issue was also highlighted by DP when posting their solution.
In summary, one is not supposed to bring their own knowledge about the field to the exam. the only interpretation one can derive from the exam paper is wood contains living and plant raw material does not contain lignin. There is no indication in D1 that there is a raw plant material that contains lignin.
I just think there are so many dubious points here from the mark scheme. 10 marks deducted for essential feature seems particularly high especially for 28 marks in total.
DeleteWithout the glue - its a max of 8 marks. That already punishing enough so there shouldn't be any further penalized on other features. I also think the loss of marks without the glue is also too much and punishing.
The most bizarre is the fact that referring to the correct apparatus feature to achieve the technical effect of the method lose you 10 marks. Why? It is surely needed to produce the 90% circulation of pulp as standard machines are in-efficient. Failure to indicate the angle would surely be seen as a results to be achieved type claim, or not enabled as 90% pulp circulation cannot be achieved using normal stamper machines/stamping step. Its a severe penalization even though this is what the client has invented.
All in all, I think Paper A is definitely appealable.
Then, the question is what is the most important claim. Clearly, the apparatus claim is most preferred as the client letter is mainly directed to this along with drawings etc... so more marks needed to be awarded to it as most candidates would spent most time on this. I think the allocation of marks is completely wrong here also.
mark scheme is basically set up to fail you. The don't award marks, they take away marks e.g. 20 marks loss for not adding glue, plus 10 marks + 10 marks for essential features missing. This basically means that it is more likely to fail you then pass you.
DeleteCompletely agree with you. Considering the previous examiner reports, one can easily derive this conclusion that the product/method most important to the client gets the maximum possible marks. This was not the case this year.
DeleteOne more point to add reading "lignin free".
DeleteThe statement in the exam paper "we only use raw plant material such as flax, hemp, straw, hay, thistles or nettles, or mixtures thereof, which does not contain lignin" and the statement in the Examiner Report "Only raw plant material which does not contain lignin, such as flax, hemp, straw, hay, thistles or nettles, or mixtures thereof (lignin-free raw plant material) is used" both use the word "which" and not the word "that".
Example: Stars that shine (coz not all the stars shine) is grammatically correct. One never says "stars which shine". If they expected lignin free the claim, the statement should read "Only raw plant material THAT does not contain lignin"
I am really finding it difficult to wrap my head around the interpretation provided in the Examiner report.
Continuing from above:
ReplyDelete- Referring back to stamper machine: Par. [19] it is clear that the effective circulation is achieved by the stamper machine of the present invention.
Par. [23] their design ensures that 90% of the pulp volume in the vat is swept/displaced with each stroke of the hammer.
In my opinion, mentioning a feature in a claim that that 90 percent volume is displaced is a result to be achieved. According to the guidelines, such a feature may be allowed if the invention either can only be defined in such terms or cannot otherwise be defined more precisely without unduly restricting the scope of the claims and if the result is one which can be directly and positively verified by tests or procedures adequately specified in the description or known to the person skilled in the art and which do not require undue experimentation.
In this case, it is certainly possible to define the invention using structural elements (stamper machine). Also, there is no indication in the exam paper that one can directly and positively verify that 90 percent volume is displaced.
So, deducting 10 marks for referring back to the machine is very harsh and incorrect. The candidate model answer also refers back to the machine.
So not including lignin free and referring back to stamper machine resulted in loss of 20 marks and one is left with maximum 8 marks possible.
What about missing glue from the method step. If referred to novel and inventive features of the apparatus, it seems that you also get absolutely hammered if you've missed glue step out. Basically, you will get double, triple penalised.
DeleteI am looking at the model answer and DP solution and struggle to see why a whooping 20 marks is knocked off for not adding glue. Further, if you have the apparatus reference, your claim should be novel and inventive based on the apparatus features. Sure, its not optimal but deducting 20 marks seems very excessive, especially for a method claim. It seems like they wanted to make a statement rather than actually being fair.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with comments above here. Paper A marking and answers are not aligned with previous years and the reasoning are at best confusing, ungenerous. Most candidates referring back to apparatus and raw material (without specifying lignin-free) should not be penalised so severely.
Delete5 independent claims is a joke to be honest. I think this one needs a complete re-visit by the committee. They had to change the 2018 answer paper so I suspect this one might need changing.
Continuing from above (2)
ReplyDeleteSo I assuming most of the candidates (like the candidate model answer as well) referred back to the stamper machine for achieving the effective circulation.
It is obvious these candidates would not include the features "90 percent of pulp circulation in the claim" as it is already achieved by the stamper machine.
According to the Examiner report, 8 marks are deducted for not specifying the "90 percent pulp circulation" feature in the claim.
Essentially referring to the stamper machine costed 18 marks. So refer to the machine and not specify lignin free (does not matter even if your entire remaining claim is correct) you would get 0. This is very harsh on the candidates and not fair at all.
Also, I am not sure if we can the call the model candidate answer as a model. According to the examiner report: even the candidate answer would get 0 for method for paper pulp, 0 (paper sheet), so 0 out of possible 44 marks for these two claims.
Sorry for the typos.
DP solution doesn't agree with model answer too on method of making pulp. There is no lignin and it needs stamper apparatus. These features should not be deducted marks based on the description of the paper so I agree with others on here.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the marks awarded from description should be based/corresponds to your claims, but it appears that this is not the case and I think I'm being harshly marked down here.
ReplyDeleteA question: if the aforementioned mistakes in the correction of paper A turns out to be true and I did not file an appeal, will I get extra points?
ReplyDeleteIt's not entirely known but if you have appealed then it would definitely be considered for you. I think you need to appeal to be sure to get the benefits of changes (if any)
Delete