Datasets:
index
int64 1
9
| question
stringclasses 9
values | A
stringclasses 9
values | B
stringclasses 9
values | C
stringclasses 9
values | D
stringclasses 9
values | type
stringclasses 1
value | field
stringclasses 2
values | dimension
int64 1
4
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | On March 20, 1997, inventor B filed a patent application in the PTO claiming invention X. Inventor B did not claim priority based on a foreign application filed by inventor B on June 3, 1996, in the Patent Office of Germany. In the foreign application, inventor B disclosed and claimed invention X, which inventor B had conceived on October 10, 1995, and reduced to practice on January 5, 1996, all in Germany. The patent examiner issued an Office action where all the claims in the patent application were properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e) as being anticipated by a U.S. patent granted to inventor Z on November 5, 1996, on a patent application filed in the PTO on February 6, 1995. There is no common assignee between Z and B, and they are not obligated to assign their inventions to a common assignee. Moreover, inventor Z, independently of inventor B, invented invention X, and did not derive anything from inventor B. The U.S. patent discloses, but does not claim, invention X. Which of the following is/are appropriate response(s) which could overcome the rejections under § 102(a) and (e) when timely filed? | Amend the claims to require particular limitations disclosed in inventor B's application, but not disclosed or suggested in inventor Z's patent, and argue that the limitations patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. | File an antedating affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR § 1.131 showing conception on October 10, 1995, and reduction to practice on January 5, 1996, all in Germany. | File a claim for the right and benefit of foreign priority wherein the German application is correctly identified, file a certified copy of the original German patent application, and argue that as a result of the benefit of foreign priority the U.S. patent is no longer available as a prior art reference against the claims. | (A), (B) and (C). | single-choice | category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利 | 2 |
2 | Which of the following scenarios is most likely to bar X and Y from being joint inventors in an application? | X and Y worked on the invention during the same time frame but in different physical locations. | X's contribution was solely to claim 1, whereas inventor Y's contribution was solely to claim 2. | X discovered that the source of the trouble with the operation of his paper press was its slow speed and concluded that a slight change in wire slope might improve the speed. When informed of this, inventor Y, who was very skeptical at first, made the change in the slope of the wire and found to his surprise that a significant improvement in speed did in fact occur. | X and Y worked on the invention while in the employ of different employers. | single-choice | category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利 | 1 |
3 | Inventors Apple and Cherry are employed by Fruit Company, each with knowledge of the other's work, and with an obligation to assign inventions to Fruit Company. Apple invented A in September 1996. On October 30, 1996, Cherry modified A to AB, an obvious improvement of A. Apple filed a patent application in the PTO on November 6, 1996, claiming invention A. Cherry filed a patent application in the PTO on February 11, 1997, claiming AB. In an Office action in Cherry's application, the claims to AB are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(e)/103 over Apple's application, and provisionally rejected for double patenting over Apple's application. These are the only remaining rejections. In order to properly overcome the rejections and ensure that Fruit Company can sue an alleged infringer of claims to AB, Cherry should: | File a terminal disclaimer and appropriate fee. | File an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR § 1.131 showing a date of invention for AB prior to the invention of A. | File an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR § 1.131 showing October 30, 1996, to be the date of invention of AB, a petition under 37 CFR § 1.183 to waive the prohibition of the use of 37 CFR 1.131 affidavits or declarations where the same patentable invention is being claimed, and a terminal disclaimer and appropriate fee. | File an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR § 1.131 showing the date of invention of AB to be prior to the filing date of Apple's application, a petition under 37 CFR § 1.183 to waive the prohibition of the use of 37 CFR § 1.132 affidavits or declarations where substantially the same patentable invention is being claimed, and a disclaimer of any patent which may issue and the appropriate fee. | single-choice | category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利 | 3 |
4 | Independently of each other, M and Z invented the same tennis racket in the United States. A U.S. patent was granted to M on February 18, 1997, on an application filed on April 12, 1995 claiming the same tennis racket. On March 10, 1997, Z filed a patent application in the PTO claiming the same tennis racket. There is no common assignee between M and Z, and they are not obligated to assign their inventions to a common assignee. M and Z filed their respective patent applications diligently shortly after each conceived the tennis racket invention. Under which of the following provisions of 35 U.S.C § 102 is the U.S. patent to M prior art with regard to the tennis racket claimed by Z? | 35 U.S.C § 102(a) | 35 U.S.C § 102(e) | 35 U.S.C § 102(g) | (A) and (B) only. | single-choice | category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利 | 3 |
5 | X invented a glass cutter. On June 20, 1994, X filed a first patent application in the PTO wherein X disclosed and claimed the glass cutter. On September 20, 1995, X filed a second patent application in the PTO, again disclosing and claiming the glass cutter. The disclosure in the second application is identical to the disclosure in the first application, but the second application did not refer to the first application, or otherwise indicate that the second application was a continuation of the first application. The first application was expressly abandoned on September 21, 1995. On January 15, 1997, X filed a third application in the PTO, disclosing and claiming the glass cutter. In the first sentence of the specification of the third application, X stated that the third application was a continuation application of the second application. The second application was expressly abandoned on January 16, 1997. X later amended the first sentence of the third application to state that the second application was "now abandoned." In an Office action dated May 5, 1997, the claims in the third application were rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by a foreign patent published on August 1, 1994. There is no difference between the glass cutter described in the foreign patent and the glass cutter which is claimed. The foreign patent provides an enabling disclosure to make the claimed glass cutter. At the time it is made, the rejection is | improper because the third application has the benefit of the filing date of the second application which, in turn, has the benefit of the first application which, in turn, antedates the reference. | improper because the third application has the benefit of the filing dates of the first and second applications, and the foreign patent is antedated by the filing date of the first application. | improper because the foreign patent is effective as a publication after the filing date of the first application. | proper because the third application has the benefit of the filing date of the second application, but not the first application, and the foreign patent was published more than one year before the filing date of the second application. | single-choice | category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利 | 1 |
6 | A Demand for International Preliminary Examination must be filed with: | The Receiving Office. | The International Bureau. | The International Preliminary Examining Authority. | The International Searching Authority. | single-choice | category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利 | 4 |
7 | X invented a chemical composition. On June 20, 1994, X filed a first patent application in the PTO wherein X disclosed and claimed the same composition, and claimed benefit of priority of a British application. The patent examiner twice rejected the claims in the first application under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of an enabling disclosure. The examiner maintained the rejection in a final rejection. On appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the rejection was affirmed in a decision dated February 4, 1997. On March 31, 1997, X filed a second application disclosing and claiming the same chemical composition, and containing an enabling disclosure of how to make the composition. The first sentence of the specification of the second application contains a specific reference to the first application. On April 1, 1997, X expressly abandoned the first application, and amended the first sentence of the second application to state that the first application was "now abandoned." X did not seek judicial review of the Board's decision. In an Office action dated May 5, 1997, all the claims in the second application were rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over an article in Composition Magazine which was published and on newsstands in the United States and Great Britain in June 1995. The article provides a full and enabling description of the claimed chemical composition, and provides readers with addresses in the United States and Great Britain where the composition may be purchased. The rejection is | improper because the claims of the second application have the benefit of the filing date of the first application which, in turn, antedates the reference. | proper because the claim of the second application have no benefit of the filing date of the first application, and the article was published and the invention was offered for sale in the United States more than one year before the filing date of the second application. | improper because the article constitutes an offer for sale of the chemical composition in Great Britain as well as in the United States. | improper because the article is effective as a publication only after the filing date of the first application. | single-choice | category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利 | 2 |
8 | To comply with the statutory requirements for a specification in a U.S. patent application, the specification must include all of the following except: | The best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his or her invention. | A written description of an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. | A written description of the invention. | The manner and process of making the invention. | single-choice | category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利 | 1 |
9 | X invented a compound Y useful for treating HIV patients. X attended a conference on AIDS in Chicago, Illinois on December 2, 1995, and gave an oral presentation specifically identifying compound Y and its method of use for treating HIV patients. An article was published in the Chicago Tribune newspaper on December 3, 1995, identically disclosing compound Y and its method of use for treating HIV, including teaching each and every element of compound Y. Neither X's paper nor the newspaper article disclosed how to make compound Y. X filed a patent application in the PTO on January 6, 1997, claiming compound Y. The examiner rejected the claim as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over the newspaper article in view of two U.S. patents issued in 1994. The patents teach methods of making compounds of the same general class of compounds as compound Y, and describe several methods by which compound Y can be made. The patents disclosed using the compounds disclosed therein to digest food. The rejection is | improper because it is never proper to use more than one reference in a 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection. | improper in the absence of motivation to combine the references. | improper because the compounds in the patents and compound Y have different uses. | proper because the article describes compound Y, and the patents are evidence of what was in the public's possession before X's invention regarding how to make compound Y. | single-choice | category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利 | 3 |
Dataset Card for IPEval
IPEval is a pioneering bilingual Intellectual Property (IP) agency consultation evaluation benchmark, meticulously crafted to assess the competencies of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the intricate domain of intellectual property. This benchmark is the first of its kind, encompassing a diverse spectrum of 2,657 multiple-choice questions that are intricately divided across four major capability dimensions: creation, application, protection, and management. More details can be found in our paper, github. and website.
Dataset Details
Dataset Sources
More details please see our github.
- Downloads last month
- 72