Friday, 17 February 2017

Monday, 20 June 2016

Examination Papers A and B – Examination Board made mock papers available

 With effect from 2017, a single Paper A and a single Paper B will be set each year. As for current Paper C and the Pre-Examination, Papers A and B will be set in technical fields that are accessible to everyone. The Examination Board has made  mock papers available for Paper A (examiner report) and Paper B (examiner report). The examiner reports are currently available in English only.

Wednesday, 2 March 2016

B-Chemistry 2016: First impressions?


To all who sat the B-paper today:

What are your first impressions to this year's B-paper?
Any general or specific comments?

How many marks do you expect to have scored?
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score?
How did this year's paper compare to the 2014 and 2015 papers (assuming your practiced those)

The paper
Copies of the paper are available here

This blog
We are sorry to inform you that will not post answer to the B chemistry paper ourselves his year.
 
We do however want to give all chemistry candidates the opportunity to discuss the papers ands their answers here.

We look forward to your comments!
Comments are welcome in any official EPO language, not just English. So, comments in German and French are also very welcome!

Please do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 03-03-2015 03:03"), whereas using your real name or a pseudonym is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation. You do not need to log in or make an account - it is OK to just put your (nick) name at the end of your post.

Please post your comments as to first impressions, general remarks as well as any details about the paper and your answer. Feel also free to discuss your answers.
 
Thanks!

Thursday, 2 July 2015

Results Main Exam EQE 2015 now available!

Today, 2 July 2015, the results from the EQE Main Exam 2015 were made available on the EQE webpages (pdf), as a list showing the marks per EQE regnr. The pdf-file also indicates that the official results letters will be dispatched as of 14 July onwards, and that only the results as notified in the official results letter are legally binding.


Pass rates for each of the papers papers and score distributions are presented in our general EQE blog: http://eqe-deltapatents.blogspot.nl/

Tuesday, 3 March 2015

Our comments to B Chemistry 2015 (airbag compositions)

The Chemistry version of Paper B (English, French, German) addressed airbag compositions.

New set of claims
  1. Airbag composition comprising,
    1. 20 to 50 wt.% of a fuel being selected from the group of tetrazole, aminotetrazole, nitrotetrazole, nitroaminotetrazole and triazole;
    2. 30 to 70 wt.% of an oxidant being selected from alkali metal or alkaline earth metal nitrate, chlorate or perchlorate;
    3. 10 to 20 wt. % of a slag forming agent comprising a carbide of boron, aluminium or silicon, in which the slag forming agent comprises hydrotalcite as a secondary slag forming agent which is added in a weight ratio of 1:5 to 5:1 with respect to the carbide, and wherein the fuel is in the form of fuel particles having a size of 5 to 80 µm.
  2. Airbag composition according to claim 1, wherein the slag forming agent comprises a carbide of aluminium or silicon.
  3. Process for making the airbag composition according to claim 1 or 2 comprising the steps:
    1. mixing the slag forming agent and hydrotalcite;
    2. adding the other ingredients;
    3. pressing for at least 5 minutes the mixture as obtained in step (iii) into pellets;
    4. heat treating the pellets at a temperature between 80 and 120 ˚C for at least 10 hours.
  4.  Airbag comprising the airbag compositions according to claim 1 or 2.
Amendments

The amendment in claim 1 as suggested by the Applicant finds no basis in the application as filed, since there is only basis for hydrotalcite in combination with a carbide as slag forming agent, not nitride. In this respect reference is made to original claim 3 and [011], lines 4-5 of the application as originally filed.

The same reasoning applies to the amended process claim.

Looking forward to your comments!

Note: if you do not have a google account, you can post using the "Anonymous" option. In that case, please sign the comment with your name -or a nickname if you do not want to give your real name.

Lex

© Copyright DeltaPatents, 2015
All rights reserved. No part of this answer may be reproduced, used in any way for generating further course material or updates, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written consent of DeltaPatents.
The answer is made available for personal use only.

Tuesday, 4 March 2014

B-ch 2014: our amended claims

Our amended claims and considerations in their support are given below. A disclaimer applies here; we have no more knowledge of the solution than any of the candidates. So we may be on the wrong track. One should also realize that your argumentation is worth most of the marks. 

Your comments are highly appreciated!

Examen 2014 B ziet er relatief eenvoudig uit.
Op grond van de door de klant voorgestelde conclusies kan het volgende worden ingediend:

1.    Process for the hydrogenation of edible oils in the presence of hydrogen a catalyst comprising a solid support, precious metal nanoparticles having an average particle size of 1 to 12 nm, according to ASTM 99999/2000, and at least 0.1 wt% of a polymer containing a heterocyclic group having at least one heteroatom.
2.    The process according to claim 1 wherein the heterocyclic group is a side group of the polymer.
3.    Process according to claim 1 or 2 wherein the heteroatom is nitrogen.
4.    Process according to claim 1 to 3 wherein the polymer is polyvinylpyrrolidone.
5.    Process according to claims 1 to 4, wherein the edible oil is fish oil.
6.    Process according to claims 1 to 4, wherein the edible oil is soybean oil.


D1 betreft ww voor het verkrijgen van laag transgehalte. Er wordt ook PVP gebruikt, echter als filterhulp. PVP heeft geen invloed op de reactie. De deeltjesgrootte van het edelmetaal is niet geopenbaard. De reactietijd is 3-4 uur
D2  betreft ww met gebruik van nanodeeltjes. De reactietijd is kort.
Het doel van D1 en de uitvinding is hetzelfde (laag transgehalte). D1 is CPA. Op te lossen probleem: reactietijd van D1 is te lang. Oplossing: gebruik van combinatie van nanodeeltjes en polymeer. Resultaat: behoud van goed transgehalte (ongeveer 20%; examples 4,5,7,8) terwijl reactietijd verkort is tot 15-35 minuten. D1 heeft lange reactietijd (3-4 uur), ook bij toevoegen PVP. Dit betekent dat de nu gebruikte nanodeeltjes tot een voordeel leiden.
D2 openbaart gebruik van nanodeeltjes en het feit dat daarmee korte (niet-gespecificeerde) reactietijden worden verkregen. D2 noemt geen transgehalte en geen gebruik van PVP. De combinatie van D1 en D2 leidt dus eventueel tot het gebruik van nanodeeltjes, niet tot de combinatie met PVP omdat D1 geen enkel voordeel noemt van het gebruik daarvan en D2 geen aanleiding geeft tot het gebruik daarvan.
Het gebruik van D2 als CPA lijkt me ook verdedigbaar en zelf gemakkelijker (gemeenschappelijk doel korte reactietijd; Probleem: hoog transgehalte. Dit gehalte is in D2 onbekend, maar  Examples 2 en 6 kunnen worden gezien als voorbeelden van D2 waaruit blijkt dat dit gehalte bij D2 hoog is). De toevoeging van polymeer wordt op geen enkele manier gesuggereerd in D2 en ook niet in combinatie met D1 omdat D1 juist openbaart dat het gebruik van PVP geen enkel nut heeft. Omdat het op het examen niet ongebruikelijk is om voorbeelden uit de aanvraag te herleiden tot voorbeelden van de SvT (of omgekeerd) zou het goed kunnen zijn dat de examencommissie wil uitgaan van D2.
Oorspronkelijke conclusie 2 kan worden geschrapt. Uit de aanvraag blijkt dat dit bereik alleen maar een voorkeursbereik is en dat poriën in feite helemaal niet nodig zijn [014].
Basis voor de geamendeerde conclusies is gemakkelijk uit de aanvraag te halen ([010], [015], [016] eventueel in combinatie met examples 2, 3 en 6).

Tom Beetz



(English translation)

The Exam 2014 B looks relatively simple.
On the basis of the claims as proposed by client, the following claims can be submitted:

1.    Process for the hydrogenation of edible oils in the presence of hydrogen a catalyst comprising a solid support, precious metal nanoparticles having an average particle size of 1 to 12 nm, according to ASTM 99999/2000, and at least 0.1 wt% of a polymer containing a heterocyclic group having at least one heteroatom.
2.    The process according to claim 1 wherein the heterocyclic group is a side group of the polymer.
3.    Process according to claim 1 or 2 wherein the heteroatom is nitrogen.
4.    Process according to claim 1 to 3 wherein the polymer is polyvinylpyrrolidone.
5.    Process according to claims 1 to 4, wherein the edible oil is fish oil.
6.    Process according to claims 1 to 4, wherein the edible oil is soybean oil.

D1 relates to a process of obtaining low trans contents. PVP is used, however only as a filter aid. PVP has no influence on the reaction. The particle size of the noble metal has not been disclosed. The reaction time is 3-4 hours.
D2  relates to a process using nano-particles. The reaction time is short.
The purpose of D1 and the invention is the same (low trans contents). D1 is CPA. Problem to be solved: reaction time of D1 is too long. Solution: use of combination of nano-particles and polymer. Result: maintenance of good trans content (about 20%; examples 4,5,7,8) whereas reaction time has been shortened to 15-35 minutes. D1 has long reaction times (3-4 hours), also when PVP is added. This means that the nano-particles of the invention lead to an advantage.
D2 discloses the use of nano-particles and the fact that its use leads to short (unspecified) reaction times. D2 does not disclose trans contents and does not mention the use of PVP. The combination of D1 and D2 can lead to the use of nano-particles, but not to the combination with PVP since D1does not mention any advantage for the use thereof and D2 does not suggest its use.
Starting with D2 as CPA seems also defendable and is even easier (common purpose: short reaction times; problem: high trans contents. This content is not known from D2 but  Examples 2 and 6 can be considered as examples of D2 which show that this content is high for D2). In D2 the addition of polymer has not been suggested in any manner and neither in combination with D1, because D1 discloses on the contrary that  PVP is of no use at all. Since it is not uncommon in the qualifying examination to use examples of the application as examples of the prior art (or vice versa) is it very well possible that the examination committee considers this as the correct inventive step argument..
Original claim 2 can be deleted. The application shows that this is only a preferred range and that pores are not really necessary [014].
Basis for the amendments can easily be obtained from the application ([010], [015], [016] possibly in combination with examples 2, 3 and 6).

Tom Beetz


Monday, 3 March 2014

Paper B ch available

Paper B ch is now available on our website via this link.

Our comments will be posted in due course.