EQE 2021 - my experience and results
What an exciting, but exhausting and stressful week…
I didn’t really want to write more posts to my blog this year, because it didn’t really feel relevant or useful to share what I think about the exam, and I thought I would rather take some rest after the exams. However, it also felt weird not posting once more after sharing my whole preparation process, and some of you sent me a very nice message saying that you are interested in reading my experience. So, here we go.
Paper D
I was a lot more nervous because of WISEflow than because of the actual questions, I felt prepared for Paper D. It seems like I was correct to be nervous, LOL. I don’t think I ever had such a stressful exam. It does not make any sense to describe again the software issue, it is all over the blogs, even the EPO published that they are aware of the “disruption”. I would love to see a compilation of the videos of candidates cursing/crying/shaking/yelling in front of their computers. I think I was laughing and cursing at the same time and sending messages like HELP ASAP to the chat.:) I was too shocked to cry.
The extra time was nice, at least I had it (I heard that not everyone had extra time). I did not understand why they would not extend the lunch break though, it was really bad, especially after having issues with handing in the answer for D1-2 (error message about connection issue and warning me to download my paper, but no download button, OK button not working, chat not working, and of course, no internet problems on my side at all). I had 15 minutes left for bathroom, lunch and getting back in time. And I was quite nervous because I had no idea whether my answer for D1-2 was actually handed in. This handing-in issue happened to others as well, the invigilators said that it is a common issue and happens due to overload. LOL, great to know. Have they not expected thousands of people hand in their answers at the end of the exam? I am wondering if this was the best software for the EQE, what were the other software alternatives?
I was happy that my gut feeling to do a refresher on disclaimers and partial priority was right, it was very useful in this year’s Paper. It was also funny that my template had exactly the same number of lines as the dates in the Paper.:) I also received a message saying that my PCT time limits came handy.
About the Paper itself, I was so happy to find the time limit for the translation of the Portuguese text matter in the figure in D1. In D2, I saved P-EP, which was incorrect according to the DP solution, and I believe that DP is right.:) It felt really weird that the client didn’t have many rights. (I did not check other parts of my answer.)
Paper A
It reminded me of Paper 2018 which I did not like (and would have failed…). In the end, I went with 25 micrometer but no adhesion layer. I was really confused about the sentence about the 25 micrometers, it starts with preferably and then basically says that it is essential. However, I added it after reading D2 to overcome novelty. (Please note that this is just my solution and can be wrong!!)
I had time to finish the Paper, but have no idea how I did. Paper A is always confusing, you can easily use 30 marks for not including 3 words.
This was my claim 1, if you are interested.
“1. Engine component (10, 20) for use in gas turbine engines, comprising a superalloy substrate (11, 21) coated with a ceramic oxide layer (13, 23),
the ceramic oxide layer (13, 23) having a columnar microstructure having columns (14a, 14b, 14c, 24a, 24b) with spaces (15a, 15b, 25) between the columns,
the angle between the column and the surface of the substrate being between 75 and 105°,
the ceramic oxide layer having a thickness of at least 25 micrometres.”
Paper B
Well, what a Paper B! I was actually looking forward to write Paper B, I had a bit more success with them during my preparations than with Paper A. It is hard to believe that this Paper was actually tested and finished in 3.5 hours. If yes, they did not use WISEflow, that is for sure. Just copying the client’s claims into the editor took more than 20 minutes for me (copying gets rid of formatting, you have to go back and forth to copy every amendment, then realise that the client’s version is actually incorrect and claim 4 had additional amendments in regular font, so check again every claim, in the meantime WISEflow freezing for seconds when I go to different tabs).
As everyone said, this year’s Paper B was waaay too long, with no evident solution in my opinion. Last years’ exams were a lot more straightforward. I kept changing my amendments in the last 30 minutes too. I was really confused whether the lower compartment should be deleted or changed to “removable” as the text said. In the end, I deleted it. I was also confused whether drain holes can be removed as the client wanted them. They seemed essential, but the text was confusing. The text said it is between the upper and lower compartment; and when the lower compartment is removed, the upper compartment is placed directly on the soil. Does this mean there are no drain holes either? At first I understood it like this but then put them back into my claim…
Anyway, this was my final claim:
“1. A container (1) for organic refuse (7), comprising
a. an upper compartment (3) having a support (3a) for holding the refuse (7) populated with earthworms (8);
[b. a lower compartment (4) for collecting excess moisture (6);]
b. drain holes (5) permitting moisture to drain from the upper [to the lower] compartment; [and]
c. [d] an upwardly opening covering lid (2) which fits over the container (1),
d. a moisture detector (11) with a display (12); and
e. a water spraying device (13) connected to a water container (14) for adjusting the moisture.”
I could not finish the IS arguments for claim 1, and just wrote a sentence that the arguments are the same for the independent method claims too. (I took the client’s amendments referring to the container according to claims 1-3 in the method claims as hint that no separate IS arguments are necessary.)
For the Art.52(2)(c) issue I simply added the moisture detector and the display to the relevant steps so that the steps include some technical means as well because of GL G-II 3.5.1: “A claimed method is not a method for performing mental acts as such if it requires the use of technical means (e.g. a computer, a measuring device, etc.) to carry out at least one of its steps.”
For the Third party observations I argued that since claim 1 is changed, the prior use is no longer relevant, since new claim 1 is novel and inventive over old claim 1.
(Please note that this is just my solution and can be very wrong!!)
Paper C
(added on 6 March)
Seeing that the documents are 40 pages long (more than one prior art was 6 pages long!!) and that the subject is a lot more difficult than in the previous years (underwater energy storage with different mechanical definitions such as buckling resistance, anti-buoyancy means, etc. – absolutely not impossible to understand it, but definitely not the same level as an ironing device) made me very nervous at the beginning of the exam, but then I managed somehow to find some straightforward attacks in a relatively short amount of time. I did not read all prior art in the first part. In that case, I would not have had time to finish. I spent way too much time thinking about whether an Art.54(3) novelty attack would be possible against claim 1.
In part 2, we had a partial priority situation again, it seems like they really wanted to test it this year. If the opponent’s letter hadn’t mentioned it, I am not sure many candidates would have spotted it.
I did the following attacks:
Claim 1: Novelty A3 (2nd embodiment)
Claim 2: Inventive step A3+A4+A6
Claim 3: Novelty A3
Claim 4: Novelty A5
Claim 5: Inventive step A4+A5
Claim 6+1: Art.123(2)
Claim 6+5 17-23%: Inventive step A4+A5
Claim 6+5 23-35%: Inventive step A2+A6
I did not have time to completely finish though.
Fortunately, I had no technical issues during Paper A, B and C. In summary, the exams were - in my opinion - a lot more difficult than in 2019, but not more difficult than in 2018. Except for Paper B, which was just simply messed up.
Thank you
Thank you so much for following my EQE journey, it was so nice to connect with you during lockdown. Maybe continue next year?! (Hopefully not, or at least not all Papers.) Fingers crossed!
The first human instinct would be to keep every information and knowledge to myself, but I don’t want to live in a world where everyone does that. So, I am grateful for your messages and feedback that my materials and blog were useful and that my posts made you feel less alone during this e-EQE nightmare. It really motivated me to keep sharing.:)
I am also incredibly thankful to the lovely people who donated on PayPal, you made me so happy!
Some interesting (and both scary and awesome) numbers: during the last month my blog had an average 2-300 visits every day, with a record of almost 500 visits on a day at the end of February.
My results
Well, what a stressful period of 4 months not knowing our results!
However, now in July 2021, I am proud and happy to announce that I’ve passed all four Papers with flying colours. 😊
If you’re interested, my results are as follows.
Paper A: 75
Paper B: 66
Paper C: 81
Paper D: 86 (80 without compensation)