Suggested papers for AB practice

8 responses to “Suggested papers for AB practice”

1. 

   Cinmod

   December 6, 2018

   I was actually advised not to look post 2017 has this would lead to confusion, especially if a chemist looks to the mechanical papers. I guess your advice is different! Is there a preferred methodology for doing paper A? Thanks

   Reply
2. 

   Jamie San paio

   December 7, 2018

   Hi Pete, thanks for these tips. Do you know where I could find some model answers to the Mock exam A? The examiners report is helpful, but some extra guidance on description is what I'm looking for.

   Reply
3. 

   Pete Pollard

   December 7, 2018

   Yes – they are a different style, but you need to deal with both the chemistry and the electromechanical parts. As the papers are still being made by teams of CH and EM experts, you can see the different pieces in the current exams. For full preparation, do at least 1x A-CH, 1x A-EM, 1x B-CH and 1x B-EM from before 2017 to practice dealing with such pieces.

   Reply
4. 

   Pete Pollard

   December 7, 2018

   We based the AB course in Maastricht on the mocks, and that was one of the things we worked on. I will need to ask the other tutor what we can share. Can you send me a direct e-mail or a connection request on LinkedIN?

   Reply
5. 

   Eric

   December 13, 2018

   IMHO, pre-2017 A/Mech always included "structurally distinct" embodiments, thus the "correct" claim 1 required a functional distinguishing feature (ostensibly a result to be achieved), which may look alarming to a chemist. However, only one independent claim was expected. In contrast, A/Chem could/should be claimed structurally (without breaking Unity) but different statutory classes were required (again, within Unity) – typically at least methods of making/using. I think Chemists should definitely look at old Mech papers (and vice versa) to get exposure to "things they do over there."

   Reply
6. 

   Duncan

   December 20, 2018

   Eric, I think you are right. The Exam is becoming more Mechanics friendly. In the EPO video it is confirmed that no more Markush claims are to be expected.

   Reply
7. 

   Pete Pollard

   December 22, 2018

   This is our solution with description and claims:https://drive.google.com/open?id=1D56ER-mPdEFM50Z2v2iArzVLBPJ1_rkl

   Reply
8. 

   Markus

   January 28, 2019

   I tried paper A 2014 -E/Mechanics at the weekend, and, as a chemist, had no chance to hit on the distinguishing feature required for novelty over the annexes!! It had to do with certain parts (a pair) of a nutcracker moving with respect to certain other parts but not others! I am assuming the 2019 A paper will not require this kind of mechanical understanding?? Anyone else done this paper? what did you think?

   Reply