QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: Which of the following statements, if any, is true?
A. A claim for a "soap composition comprising a maximum of 0.2 parts by weight of X per part by weight of Y" is anticipated by a soap composition disclosed in a publication as having 5 parts by weight of X per part weight of Y.
B. A claim for "a laminate circuit material comprising a sheet of adhesive film, and a sheet of conductive material disposed on said sheet of adhesive film" is not anticipated by an article of manufacture consisting of an adhesive film disposed on one surface of a sheet of conductive material and a glass reinforced adhesive film disposed on the opposite surface of said sheet of conductive material.
C. An independent Claim I for an "article comprising a widget having a coating from 0.05 to 1 mm thickness," and a dependent Claim 2 for "an article according to Claim 1 wherein the coating is 0.3 mm thick," both are anticipated by "a widget having a coating of 0.5 mm thickness" described in a printed publication.
D. A claim for a nickel alloy comprising nickel, chromium, iron and at least one member selected from the group consisting of copper, silver and tin" is anticipated by a printed publication which discloses "an alloy consisting of nickel, silver, chromium, iron, copper, and cobalt."
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On Monday, April 5, 1999, an Office action was mailed to practitioner P. The Office action contained a rejection of all claims in the application and set a three-month shortened statutory period for reply. The very last day for filing a reply without requesting an extension of time would be
A. 930873600000
B. 930960000000
C. 931132800000
D. 931219200000
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Jones invented a widget. She disclosed to her patent agent that the widget can be any combination of colors, the most preferred embodiment being a widget having a blue, orange, yellow or purple color. The agent prepared a patent application which disclosed a widget having a blue, orange or purple color and which included the following claim: "1. A widget having a blue, orange or purple color." On January 8, 1999, Jones reviewed the application and signed the oath. Just after Jones left the agent's office, the agent remembered that Jones had also disclosed to him a yellow widget. The attorney immediately prepared a preliminary amendment which included instructions to amend the specification to also include a yellow widget and to rewrite Claim 1 as follows: "A widget having a blue, orange, yellow or purple color." The specification, oath, and the amendment were mailed to the PTO in the same envelope and were received in the PTO on January 12, 1999. Given these facts, which one of the following statements is true?
A. Claim 1 cannot be properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by a patent to Smith which was filed on March 2, 1997, and issued on August 13, 1998, and which discloses but does not claim, a widget having an orange color.
B. Claim 1 can be considered to contain new matter even though the preliminary amendment was filed concurrently with the filing of the specification.
C. Claim 1 can be properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because the use of the word "or" renders the metes and bounds of the claim indeterminate.
D. Claim 1 can be properly rejected on the ground of disclaimer.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In order to calculate when an appeal brief must be filed, which of the following documents should be used to establish the date that a Notice of Appeal was filed?
A. A separate letter sent from the Patent and Trademark Office which acknowledges receipt of your Notice of Appeal.
B. A self-addressed postcard included with the filing of your Notice of Appeal which was date stamped and returned to you.
C. A copy of the Certificate of Mailing you signed which states the date you deposited the Notice of Appeal via first class mail.
D. (A), (B), and (C).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following choices would be considered as independent grounds for filing a reissue application? 
I: The claims are too narrow or too broad. 
II: The disclosure contains inaccuracies. 
III: Applicant failed to or incorrectly claimed foreign priority. 
IV: The specification contains a plurality of obvious spelling and grammatical errors. 
V: Applicant failed to make reference to or incorrectly made reference to prior copending applications.
A. (I), (II), and (IV)
B. (I), (II), (III), and (V)
C. (I), (II), (III), (IV), and (V)
D. (I), (II), (III), and (V)
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On April 19, 1999, Inventor Mary hires you for advice on a patent application. Mary informs you that she previously filed a provisional application for her invention on May 1, 1998. However, Mary has since made some improvements that were not described in her provisional application. To fully protect Mary's patent rights, what is the best course of action to recommend to Mary?
A. File an amendment in the provisional application on or before May 1, 1999, which describes the improvements made by Mary.
B. Immediately file a continued prosecution application based on the provisional application filed on May 1, 1998, and include a preliminary amendment which adds a description of the improvements made.
C. File a second provisional patent application which claims the benefit of the May 1, 1998, filing date of the first provisional patent application.
D. File a continuation-in-part application as soon as possible which adds a disclosure of the improvements made.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A U.S. patent application to AuGratin, a French national, was filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on August 10, 1997. The application disclosed and claimed an apparatus having a combination of elements A, B, and C. AuGratin filed a claim for priority in his U.S. application based upon an application which he filed in the French Patent Office on September 16, 1996. AuGratin's U.S. patent application as filed is an exact English translation of his French application. AuGratin's French application was issued and published as French Patent No. 1,234,567 on March 20, 1998. On April 12, 1999, AuGratin filed a continuation-in-part application (CIP) containing disclosure of new element D in the apparatus. The CIP application included new claims to an apparatus comprising a new combination of elements A, B, C, and D. The examiner properly rejected the new claims in the CIP application as being obvious over AuGratin's French Patent No. 1,234,567 in view of a U.S. patent to Baker which clearly suggests modifying AuGratin's apparatus by adding element D to the combination of elements A, B, and C. The rejection is a prima facie case of obviousness. Can AuGratin's French patent be removed as a reference?
A. Yes, because AuGratin can swear behind French Patent No. 1,234,567 since the publication date of AuGratin's French patent is less than one year prior to AuGratin's August 10, 1997, U.S. filing date.
B. Yes, because the claims in the parent application are supported in the CIP application.
C. No, because the new claims in the CIP are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent application since the combination of elements A, B, C, and D is not supported in the parent application.
D. Yes, because AuGratin's French patent cannot be used as prior art in view of the claim for priority in the parent application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A Customer Number in the USPTO may be used to do which of the following?
A. Designate the fee address of a patent.
B. Designate the correspondence address of a patent application.
C. Serve as the Deposit Account Number to pay an extension of time fee.
D. Submit a list of practitioners so that an applicant may in a Power of Attorney appoint those practitioners associated with the Customer Number.
(category: trademark, Chinese translation: 商标)
Question: Where a flat board and parallel legs are separate elements which are intended to be included in a claim to the combination of the flat board and legs, the combination is properly set forth in which of the following claims?
A. A table having a flat board and parallel legs secured to the flat board.
B. A table having a flat board capable of being connected to parallel legs.
C. A table having a flat board and means for securing parallel legs to the flat board.
D. A table having a flat board with means whereby parallel legs can be secured to the flat board.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements regarding design patent applications is (are) false?
A. The use of trademarks in design patent application Specifications is permitted under limited circumstances.
B. It is improper to use a trademark alone or coupled with the word "type" in the title of a design patent.
C. A design patent and a trademark may be obtained on the same subject matter.
D. It is the policy of the Patent and Trademark Office to prohibit the inclusion of a copyright notice in a design patent application.
(category: design patent, Chinese translation: 设计专利)
Question: Which of the following statements concerning the confidentiality of patent applications before the Patent and Trademark Office is true?
A. All documents filed as part of the Disclosure Document Program are open to the public two years after filing.
B. All reissue applications are open to the public.
C. Copies of any document contained in the application file for which the United States acted as the International Preliminary Examining Authority will be furnished in accordance with Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Rule 94.2 or 94.3 upon payment of the appropriate fee.
D. (B) and (C).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Apple's claims have been properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Carrot. The rejection is based upon the disclosed, but unclaimed, subject matter in the Carrot patent. The Carrot patent issued six months after the filing date of Apple's application. The unclaimed subject matter in the Carrot patent was not invented by Carrot, but rather was disclosed to Carrot by Apple. Carrot's claimed invention is patentably distinct from Apple's claimed invention. The proper reply to obviate this rejection would be to:
A. Copy the claims in the Carrot patent to provoke an interference.
B. File an affidavit by Carrot establishing that Carrot derived his knowledge of the relevant subject matter from Apple.
C. Argue that the Carrot patent is not prior art because the patent did not issue before Apple filed his application.
D. File a terminal disclaimer signed by Apple.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: In which of the following situations does the prohibition against double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 121 not apply?
A. The applicant voluntarily files two or more cases without a restriction requirement by the examiner.
B. The requirement for restriction was only made in an international application by the International Searching Authority or the International Preliminary Examining Authority.
C. The requirement for restriction was withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues.
D. The claims of the second application are drawn to the "same invention" as the first application or patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application is filed with 10 claims. Claims 1, 2, and 3 are independent claims directed to a product. Claim 4 is an independent claim directed to a process for making the product. Which of the following would be acceptable form for a dependent Claim 5?
A. A product as in claims 1-3, wherein ...
B. A product as claimed in claims 1, 2, and 3, wherein...
C. A product as in claim 1, made by the process of claim 4.
D. A product as claimed in any one of claims 1, 2, or 3 wherein...
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Your client, Smith, invents a composition for adhering metal to glass. You prepare a patent application including a specification and several claims of varying scope. Your specification includes a detailed description of Smith's invention, which sets forth the following: the composition is made from, among other things, a combination of A, B, and C; the composition is at least 20% A but can be up to 30% A; the composition works best if it is 24% to 26% A; and the composition contains substantially equal portions of B and C. Your specification also includes guidelines for determining what would constitute substantially equal portions of B and C in the composition. Furthermore, your specification includes a detailed explanation of why it is preferable to use 24% to 26% A. Among the following claims drawn to Smith's invention, which is the broadest claim that is unlikely to be properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph?
A. A composition comprising 20 to 30% A, and substantially equal portions of B and C.
B. A composition comprising 20 to 30% A, preferably 24% to 26%A.
C. A composition comprising 20 to 30% A, 30% B, and 30% C.
D. A composition comprising 24% A, and substantially equal portions of B and C.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On August 17, 1999, you filed a reissue application to enlarge the scope of the claims directed to an electrical device in a patent granted to your client on January 20, 1998. In the patent, as well as the patent application on which the patent was granted, the broadest disclosure (including the specification and the original claim) regarding the resistance of the device is that "the device's resistance is .02 to 1.5 ohms." The examiner issued a non-final first Office action containing a rejection of several claims in the reissue application. Your reply to the first Office action includes presentation of an amendment to the specification adding the following disclosure: "The device can have a resistance of 3.0 to 4.5 ohms." No petition and fee requesting entry of the amendment was filed. In accordance with PTO practice and procedure,
A. the amendment will be entered, and if the examiner objects to the amendment to the specification as being new matter, you should traverse the objection on the grounds that the patent owner is entitled to enlarge the scope of the content of the patent.
B. the amendment will not be entered because the amendment to the specification does not enlarge the scope of the claim.
C. the amendment will not be entered because a petition and necessary fee requesting entry of the amendment was not filed.
D. the amendment will be entered, and if the examiner objects to the amendment to the specification as being new matter, you should file another amendment canceling "The device can have a resistance of 3.0 to 4.5 ohms."
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Smith received a second Office action in his pending application finally rejecting pending claims 1-20 on prior art grounds. Claims 1 and 11 are presented in independent form, claims 2-10 depend from claim 1, and claims 12-20 depend from claim 11. To continue prosecution, Smith submitted an Amendment After Final Rejection narrowing the scope of independent claims 1 and 11. Smith believed the Amendment placed the application in condition for allowance and, accordingly, requested entry of the Amendment and allowance of the application. However, the Examiner denied entry on the ground that the Amendment presented new issues requiring further consideration or search. Rather than appeal the rejection, Smith filed a request for a Continuing Prosecution Application (CPA), and asked that the Amendment After Final be entered as a Preliminary Amendment. The Examiner issued a first Office action in the CPA allowing claims 1-10 and finally rejecting claims 11-20 on substantially the same grounds that these claims had been rejected in the parent application. Which of the following statements regarding the first Office action in the CPA is correct?
A. The Examiner cannot properly allow claims 1-10 because a determination was made in the parent application that the Amendment After Final Rejection presented new issues requiring further consideration or search.
B. The Examiner is precluded from rejecting claims 11-20 on substantially the same grounds that these claims had been rejected in the parent application because a determination was made in the parent case that the Amendment After Final Rejection presented new issues requiring further consideration or search.
C. The Amendment After Final Rejection cannot be entered as a Preliminary Amendment in the CPA application.
D. The finality of the rejection of claims 11-20 is improper.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: After filing a proper appeal brief for an application you are prosecuting, you begin to have doubts as to how convincing your arguments would be to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("Board"). After further consideration, you agree to the examiner's suggestions. You file an amendment incorporating all of the examiner's suggestions after you filed the appeal brief and before an examiner's answer is mailed in this patent application. In accordance with PTO practice and procedure, the amendment
A. may be entered if the amendment obviously places the application in condition for allowance and there is a showing of good and sufficient reasons why it was not earlier presented.
B. will not be entered as it was not sent prior to or with the appeal brief.
C. will not be entered because it was not in the form of a petition.
D. will be entered and appended to the appeal brief for the Board's consideration.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On March 1, 1995, applicant filed a nonprovisional patent application for a stool. The original disclosure set forth that a base member of the stool was generally elliptical and, in particular, could be circular (a special kind of ellipse). It also stated that all leg members must be parallel to each other. The only claim included in the application stated as follows: 1. A stool for sitting on, comprising a circular shaped base member having a top surface and a bottom surface; said bottom surface having a center portion and three circular holes equally spaced about said center portion; and three leg members connected to said bottom surface, each hole having a leg member protruding therefrom. In a first Office action rejection, the examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as unpatentable over a U.S. Patent to Pigeon. The Pigeon patent specified that each of the leg members formed a thirty degree angle with each of the other leg members. Applicant filed a timely response to the Office action, amending the specification to state that the leg members could be substantially parallel and including guidelines for determining what would be considered "substantially parallel." Applicant also amended claim 1 as follows: 1. (once amended) A stool for sitting on, comprising a circular shaped base member having a top surface and a bottom surface; said bottom surface having a center portion and three circular holes equally spaced about said center portion; and three leg members connected to said bottom surface, each hole having a leg member protruding therefrom, wherein the leg members are parallel to each other. The examiner allowed Claim 1 as amended and a patent was granted to applicant on January 5, 1997. On January 5, 1999, applicant filed a reissue application, including a proper declaration pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.175. Assume that there is no other relevant prior art. In accordance with PTO rules and procedure, which of the following statements concerning the reissue application is true?
A. Any amendment to claim 1 so as to broaden its scope will likely be considered untimely.
B. If applicant amends claim 1 to replace "a circular shaped member" with "an elliptical shaped member," then the amendment should be considered untimely since the amendment would broaden the scope of the claim.
C. If applicant amends claim 1 to delete "wherein the leg members are parallel to each other," then the amended claim should be allowed.
D. If applicant amends claim 1 to replace "parallel" with "substantially parallel," then the amended claim will likely be allowed.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: If each of the following claims is in a different utility patent application, and each claim is fully supported by the disclosure in preceding claims or in the application in which the claim appears, which claim properly presents a process claim?
A. A process of utilizing a filter comprising electrical components, placing a plurality of electrodes on the human body, receiving electrical signals from the electrodes, and passing the signals through the filter which comprises electrical components.
B. A process of polymerizing an organic compound by combining in a reaction vessel a catalyst and reactants dissolved in a solvent, heating the mixture in the vessel to a high temperature to start the reaction, separating an upper organic layer from the remaining materials, and evaporating the solvent.
C. The use of a water repellant paint as a sealant for wooden patio furniture.
D. (A) and (B).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: You were drafting a patent application claiming a widget invented by your client Able. While drafting the application, you looked through a recent Official Gazette and noticed a patent, No. 888,888,888, directed to a widget that appears to be the same as the widget you are claiming. You obtained a copy of the patent and discovered that the patent was granted on May 4, 1999, to your client's strongest competitor, QED Incorporated. Claim 5 in the QED patent is the same widget Able invented. Claim 6 in the QED patent is an improvement to Able's widget. The QED patent was granted on a patent application filed on December 22, 1997. You have evidence that Able invented his widget before December 22, 1997. You copied, as claim 9 in Able's application, QED claim 5. Today, November 3, 1999, you are about to file, in the PTO, Able's nonprovisional patent application containing claim 9, and an information disclosure statement (IDS) listing several patents, including the OED patent, and publications. Which of the following would be the most proper course of action to take to comply with your duties to your client and the PTO?
A. In the IDS, state and explain why the identified patents may be relevant, and state that the burden has shifted to the examiner to find and disclose other pertinent or relevant prior art.
B. Identify the QED patent in bold in the list in the IDS, and include the following explanation about the QED patent: "QED discloses a relevant type of widget."
C. In the IDS, state, "The QED patent discloses a relevant type of widget," and provide a copy of the patent.
D. In the IDS, state, "Claim 9 in this application has been copied from claim 5 in the QED patent," and provide a copy of the patent.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)