Want to protect your mobile phone ? A sock might work ...

The excellent K's Law blog summarised a recent decision by the Board of Appeal. In itself the decision was not all that surprising, yet for those preparing for the EQE, in particular for the new pre-exam, the summary might be worth reading.

The Board examines (inter alia) whether or not a sock may anticipate a claim directed to a protective casing for for example a mobile phone. The decision contains an excellent summary of the "suitable for doctrine".

Read the summary here.

Some more general comments about the pre-exam (derived from last weeks tutor meeting) will follow soon...

Updated G Summary available !!!

I know you have all been waiting for this and reminded me from time to time that it was still not there. I told most of you that I would post an updated version well before the EQE. Well, good news, the G Summary has been updated and is now available for download. Either go to the download pages, or click here for a direct download.

I wish you all the best for 2011 !!

PS: Note that the EQETools LinkedIN group is steadily growing. Feel free to join the group and post your questions, concerns, thoughts etc. etc.

More free EQE resources

Some time ago the website www.cyberepc.com was launched. The idea behind this website is to provide an online source of information related to the EPC. Articles, Rules Guidelines and further information is all (hyper)linked so it is easy to navigate and find the provisions that you need. All that said the website was not primarily developed for EQE candidates.

CyberEPC has today expanded it's scope also to those looking for information and tools related to the EQE. You can find the "EQE Workspace" here.

A nice thing about the CyberEPC is that it is available in all three official languages of the EPC. For those wondering what these languages are, click here :-)

Have a nice weekend!

The end of Swiss type claims

In G2/08 the use of Swiss type claims was said to be no longer allowed 3 months after publication of the decision in the Official Journal.

The EPO has published a note on their website with more information, click here.
The three month period as determined in G2/08 expires January 28, 2011.


This means that Swiss type claims are no longer allowed in European aplications filed after that date, or having an earliest priority date of January 29, 2011. If any such application contains Swiss-type claims, the applicant will be invited to correct this deficiency.

The paper A tool has been corrected in view of this decision.
Read G2/08 here.

ABC/D comprehensive by Patskills

Brian Cronin from Patskills has recently published the ABC/D comprehensive, which is available from unibook.com, click here.

Short description (copied from the Unibook website):

This book is a comprehensive analysis of the European Qualifying Exam for European Patent Attorney candidates preparing for the exam.
The book’s title alludes to the fact that paper D lays a legal foundation for the legally-oriented practical papers A, B and C.
It is designed principally for candidates who are embarking on their EQE preparations, to enable them to lay the foundations of effective exam preparation and enhance their professional performance. It will also be useful for candidates and resitters who need to review what they have achieved so far in order to consolidate and continue successfully. ABC/D Comprehensive is more than a primer to introduce beginners to the EQE. It provides a thorough understanding of the exam so candidates can orient effectively their exam preparation in order to optimize their return on the considerable investment involved.
According to the website the book costs 36 euro and probably a bit more for shipment.

Comments on EQE 2010 Paper A Chemistry Part I

I have studied paper A 2010 (Chemistry) recently, first of all to see if the method you can download from this website still would have worked and secondly to see what the paper was all about. I did not draft any claims, yet wrote down in general which claims I think were expected.

After having done so I checked the eqe-online forum and found out there was quite some discussion going on about what should be claimed. Below my personal opnion and some thoughts on this. I'll probably post some more on this paper later.

In his letter, the client indicates that he would like to have protection not only to the specific invention described but that he would also like coverage for any other application that may be envisaged in the future. The client does not give any example of such a possible other application.

The letter then continues by stating the main problems of the known bio-active glasses:

- known glasses need to be ground, which results in
            o non uniform particles; some of them are too large
            o irregular in shape
            o random arrangement encourages irregular bone structure
            o use of powder may be dangerous

- known glasses cannot be drawn into fibres easily and fibres not very well absorbed in the bone

The basic idea of the invention resides in the finding that certain compositions were found that in fact can be drawn in fibres easily and that these fibres (when cut) are very suitable for ossification.

(Note that the client does not mention anything about grinding the “inventive” composition, he only talks about making the fibres!)

The prior art consists of two small documents, D1 basically corresponding to what the client already described in the letter. D2 also discloses glass compositions, but does not mention anything about the use  thereof as bioactive material.

Unfortunately (?) D2 discloses compositions that fall in the range of compositions that were found to be suitable by the client. In fact, D2 discloses the exact same compositions as in the examples provided by the client.

Thus, a composition can not be claimed as it is not novel over D2.

There is an interesting discussion on the eqe-online forum where some people are of the opinion that it was possible to add a disclaimer, thereby disclaiming the D2 compositions. Ocassionally reference is made to G1/03.

My personal opinion is that introduction of a disclaimer is incorrect:

- With respect to G1/03 it is noted that this decision relates to amendments. More in particular, the decision sets out the criteria to be met when amending an application by introducing an “undisclosed disclaimer” without offending against Article 123(2). Obviously when you are drafting a patent application you are not amending anything so that these criteria don’t apply and G1/03 is not so relevant at all. (You can disclaim anything you like in an application; it will by definition be a “disclosed disclaimer”.)

So, the argument that "D2 is from a totally remote field" is in my view irrelevant for arguing the introduction of a disclaimer.

- More importantly, D2 clearly discloses “compositions around compositions 1-3”. This means in my opinion that D2 not only discloses the compositions 1-3 but also compositions that are “close”. So, a disclaimer disclaiming the three compositions from D2 only would arguably be insufficient to create novelty over D2. The result is a strange situation where you cannot really disclaim what D2 discloses. To me this was a clear pointer that a disclaimer is not what the exam committee is looking for.

- Further to this the compositions of D2 are exactly the same as the compositions according to the client's examples. This again is (in my view) a hint that a disclaimer is not appropriate.

In this respect it is finally noted that (although not explicitly mentioned as far as I know) the composition as such only solves the technical problem of being able to be drawn into fibres more easily. All the other technical problems mentioned above seem to be solved only by making fibres from the compositions first.

All in all, I don’t think you could have claimed a composition.

(As a general comment I can add that I found this paper a bit more difficult than the paper of 2009.)

Editable version of the Implementing Regulations

An editable version (in English) of the Implementing Regulations is available for download.

Click here for a direct download.

Or click here to find it in the download section.

If you have no idea why this document is available you probably don't need it :-)
That said, still a lot of people want to make their own annotated version of the EPC. This download will hopefully be of use to them.

As always, I tried to make the document as clean and accurate as possible. If nevertheless you find some errors please let me know either by e-mail or by posting a comment.

Note that this specific version concerns the Rules as in force on 31/12/2009. The major amendments that will enter into force on April 1st 2010 are NOT included. I will make a seperate version in the course of this year.

Paper A tool E/M

One of the visitors of this Blog has modified/updated the Paper A tool (which is focussed on the Chemistry paper) in view of the E/M paper.

Download it here under 3rd Party Tools.


Update: In the EQE Wiki, which you can find on the eqe-online forum there is another article on how to tackle paper A E/M. Click here

How about this?

I've done some experimenting with Google Docs over the weekend and found out that this platform has some very cool features. One such feature of particular interest is that several people can work on one and the same document at the same time. The interesting part is that each editor can (with a delay of a few seconds at most) see what the others are doing. In fact, you can even see who is editing at any particular time.

This opens up the possibility for making tools that can be developed, edited, corrected continuously. The only two things that are required are internet access and a Google account. You can make text documents, spreadsheets and presentations. So you could envisage a free, editable, (hopefully) updated version of (an annotated)  EPC and/or PCT, which is available online 24/7. Or, what about presentations/ flowcharts on specific topics or parts of the law....


This all sounds very nice of course, but developing all this material requires time. So, I'm wondering if anyone would be interested in contributing to such "online projects". Keep in mind that the more people that join, the less each person has to do/type.

Please send me an e-mail if you'd like to contribute..

Tool for Paper A available

Inspired by yesterday's good news I have now posted the tool I developed myself for taking the paper A. Please note that I took the chemistry paper and that as such this tool may need some tweaking to also suit the E/M exam. If someone feels confident in making a similar tool for E/M, please let me know and I'll send you a document you can edit. I'm happy to post the result in the download area.

Anyway, tackling the A paper may be done using several strategies/ approaches and in general the advice is to find the way that suits you best (not much of an advice is it...).

During my first days of preparation I was taught to first "scan" through the client's letter and the prior art and after that carefully re-read everything identifying all possible inventions. I know that many of my colleague candidates used this approach during last exam and at least several of them were succesful.

However this method did not suit me because most of the time I was biased by the prior art when trying to define all possible inventions. As a result I did not do very well in the first papers I practised. I then started working on (more or less) my own approach which in the end resulted in the A tool that is now available for download.

The key difference in my approach is that I:
- First read the letter of the client very accurately and in full detail and at the same time filled in all tables in the tool.
- Only after I basically defined all possible inventions I read the prior art and indicated which possible invention was not patentable (i.e. not new or inventive)

The tool is easiest to use when you print it on A3 double sided.
Any comments/ additions/ suggestions are welcome.

Good luck, I hope you find this tool useful.

Download the tool here.

T 2321/08 continued...

The Blog "European Patent Case Law" noticed an interesting development concerning this case.

The Examining Division, in a communication undert Art. 94(3) following the order of the Board of Appeal, openly comments on this decision and argues why this decision is either incorrect, should not be followed and/or why the issue at hand should possibly be dealt with by the Enlarged Board.

Click here for the European Patent Case Law Blog. (In case you have difficulty with reading French, there is a translation option in this Blog that works quite well. Further, you can also download the communication directly from this Blog.)

Click here for an earlier post on this decision.

T 431/07: Insufficient disclosure

In this case a proprietor filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division to revoke the patent based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure.

With respect to the aleged insufficient disclosure claim 5 as granted is of importance. This claim reads:

5. Universal colouring compositions according to any one of the preceding claims, characterized in that they have a viscosity of 2.0-10.0 poises at 20°C.

The specification itself did not provide any information as to how this viscosity was measured and which type of measurement equipment was used.

The subject matter of claim 5 was incorporated in claim 1 of several requests.

The proprietor (appellant) argued that the skilled person in this specific field would measure this viscosity using a so called "Stormer viscosimeter". However, the respondent filed evidence that such a viscosimeter would not provide measurement results in the absolute unit "poises" but rather in relative values.

The board then reasons (R 2.2.5) "in view of the numerous techniques and devices used in the state of the art to measure viscosity, it amounts to an undue burden for the person skilled in the art if the latter is left without any clear guidance as to how to prepare compositions which meet the required range of viscosity."

Following the established case law (e.g. T14/83, OJ EPO 1984,105) the Board concludes that the invention as claimed has not been disclosed in a manner sufficiently clear and complete within the meaning of Article 100(b) EPC.

This decision may seem straightforward, however in numerous A exams (at least in the chemistry field) candidates have had to put clear definitions in the claims of measurement methods (or other features).

From what I learned some guidance (but always judge for yourself!) may be the following:

In the exam look for sentences like "as is a generally known", or "known to the skilled person" or any similar language in the letter of the client. If you find these sentences in relation to a specific feature it is normally not necessary to put a clear definition in the claim.

On the other hand, in the absense of such language, if you find clear definitions for certain claim features you have to put these definitions in the claim and not only in the description.

Read the decision here.

Downloads

By clicking the links below you can download the tools available on this website.Please let me know if one or more of the links is not working.

Tools & Articles by EQETools

Paper A tool
Read this post for more information.

Paper B tool

Read this post for more information.

D1 Timing tool CET
D1 Timing tool UK
Read this post for more information.

EPC Quickreference
Read this post for more information.

D2 Timeline template
Not a lot to say about this, yet some info here.

D2 Matrix template
Not a lot to say about this, yet some info here.

The G Summary, January 2012 edition
Read this post for more information.

Editable copy of the EPC: Articles
Download in PDF, MS Word, OpenOffice, RTF or TXT

Editable copy of the EPC: Rules in force 31/12/2009
Editable copy of the EPC: Rules in force 01/04/2010
Editable copy of the EPC: Rules in force 26/10/2010
Editable copy of the EPC: Rules in force 01/01/2011

Download in PDF, MS Word, OpenOffice, RTF or TXT

Summaries
Summary of the Official Journal 2009
Summary of the PCT Newsletter 2009
Summary of the PCT Newsletter 2010

Article: The Problem and Solution Approach



3rd Party Tools

Paper A Tool E/M
Based on the Paper A tool, then modified in view of the E/M paper.

EPC Keyword Guide
Read this post for more information.
Submitted October 14, 2009 by Nèstor Corominas.

EPC Flashcards
Read this post for more information.
Submitted october 26, 2009

Modified D1 timing tool CET
Modified D1 timing tool UK
Submitted January 25, 2010