QiYao-Wang/IPEval huggingface dataset:
Question: A Certificate of Correction effectuates correction of an issued patent where:
A. Through error and without deceptive intent, there is a failure to make reference to a prior copending application according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.78, and the failure does not otherwise affect what is claimed, but the prior copending application is referenced in the record of the application, and a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.324 and appropriate fees were filed.
B. Through error and without deceptive intent, a preferred embodiment that materially affects the scope of the patent was omitted in the original disclosure in the filed application, and a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.324 and appropriate fees were filed.
C. Through error and without deceptive intent, a prior copending application is incorrectly referenced in the application, the incorrect reference does not otherwise affect the claimed subject matter, and the prior copending application is correctly identified elsewhere in the application file, and a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.324 and appropriate fees were filed.
D. Through error and without deceptive intent, an inventor's name is omitted from an issued patent, a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.324 and appropriate fees were filed, and the petition was granted.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A multiple dependent claim:
A. may indirectly serve as a basis for another multiple dependent claim.
B. added by amendment to a pending patent application should not be entered until the proper fee has been received by the PTO.
C. may directly serve as a basis for another multiple dependent claim.
D. is properly construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of each of the particular claims to which it refers.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Buddy is a recent father and a machinist at a local machine shop that makes custom automotive parts. One day while driving to work, Buddy conceived an idea for an improved baby stroller. He quickly worked out many of the details of how to build such an improved stroller, but he still had questions. Buddy later explained his idea to his employer and showed the employer detailed preliminary drawings of the stroller without any agreement as to confidentiality. Buddy wanted use of his employer's machine shop to build a model. Buddy's employer was also excited about the stroller idea and its commercial potential, and the two quickly reached an oral agreement. Buddy would have free use of the machine shop equipment and supplies after regular business hours to work on his model. In exchange, Buddy agreed to assign any patent rights in his invention to the employer for $1000.00. Only Buddy and, occasionally, his employer were ever present in the shop when Buddy was working on the stroller. Buddy finalized the design just over a year later, and a patent application was on file within a month of finalization along with a recently executed written assignment of the rights in the invention to Buddy's employer. During prosecution of the patent application, the examiner learned of the oral agreement between Buddy and his employer, and rejected the claims on the basis that the invention was on sale more than one year before the application filing date. Which of the following would provide the most reasonable basis for traversing the rejection?
A. The Examiner cannot properly make the rejection because it is not based on prior art patents or printed publications.
B. The oral agreement was a private transaction between Buddy and his employer and no private transaction can provide a basis for an on-sale bar.
C. An assignment or sale of the rights in an invention and potential patent rights is not a sale of "the invention" that would operate as a bar to patentability.
D. Because no one other than Buddy's employer was present in the shop when Buddy was working on the stroller and the oral agreement was not public, there can be no on-sale bar even though there was no express requirement of confidentiality.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent application includes the following Claim 1: Claim 1. A method of making an electrical device comprising the steps of: (i) heating a base made of carbon to a first temperature in the range of 1875掳C to 1925掳C; (ii) passing a first gas over said heated base, said first gas comprising a mixture of hydrogen, SiCl4, phosphorus, and methane, whereby said first gas decomposes over said heated base and thereby forms a first deposited layer of silicon, phosphorus and carbon on said heated base; (iii) heating said base having said deposited layer to a second temperature of approximately 1620掳C; and (iv) passing a second gas over said base heated to said second temperature, said second gas consisting of a mixture of hydrogen, SiCl4, AlCl3, and methane, whereby said second gas decomposes over said heated base to form a second deposit layer adjacent said first layer, said second layer comprising silicon, aluminum and carbon. Assuming proper support in the specification, which of the following claims, if presented in the same application, is a proper claim?
A. Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein said first temperature is in the range of 1800掳C to 2000掳C.
B. Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein said first gas further comprises an inert gas.
C. Claim 4. The method of claim 1, wherein said second gas further comprises Argon.
D. Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein said first gas is an inert gas such as Argon.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following statements is true regarding a product-by-process claim?
A. Product-by-process claims cannot vary in scope from each other.
B. Product-by-process claims may only be used in chemical cases.
C. A lesser burden of proof may be required to make out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims than is required to make out a prima facie case of obviousness when the product is claimed in the conventional fashion.
D. It is proper to use product-by-process claims only when the process is patentable.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: An application directed to hand shearing of sheep includes the following incomplete independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-3. Claim 1. An apparatus for shearing sheep, said apparatus comprising: (i) a first cutting member having a first cutting edge at one end and a thumb loop at the other end; (ii) a second cutting member having a second cutting edge at one end and a finger loop at the other end; (iii) _____________________________________________________; (iv) said second cutting member additionally including a pointer loop between said finger loop and said mid-point, said pointer loop having a pointer loop center, said finger loop having a finger loop center and said pointer loop having a pointer loop center such that a plane through said finger loop center and said pointer loop center is generally parallel to said second cutting edge for improved balance. Claim 2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said first cutting member includes a threaded aperture extending entirely through said first cutting member between said thumb loop and said mid-point, and an adjusting screw that extends through said threaded aperture to engage a bearing surface below the pointer loop on said second cutting member. Claim 3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said connector is a rivet. Which of the following most broadly completes missing paragraph (iii) of Claim 1?
A. "wherein said first cutting member and said second cutting member are pivotally secured to each other at respective mid-points, and wherein said finger loop is padded; and"
B. "said first cutting member having a mid-point between its ends and said second cutting member having a mid-point between its ends, wherein said first cutting member and said second cutting member are pivotally secured to each other at their respective mid-points by a connector; and"
C. "said first cutting member including a reservoir for dispensing disinfectant solution and having a mid-point between its ends, said second cutting member having a mid-point between its ends, and wherein said first cutting member and said second cutting member are pivotally secured to each other at their respective mid-points by a connector; and"
D. "said first cutting member and said second cutting member being pivotally secured to each other by a connector; and"
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Applicant received a Final Rejection with a mail date of Tuesday, February 29, 2000. The Final Rejection set a 3 month shortened statutory period for reply. Applicant files an Amendment and a Notice of Appeal on Monday, March 27, 2000. The examiner indicates in an Advisory Action that the Amendment will be entered for appeal purposes, and how the individual rejection(s) set forth in the final Office action will be used to reject any added or amended claim(s). The mail date of the examiner's Advisory Action is Wednesday, May 31, 2000. Which of the following dates is the last date for filing a Brief on Appeal without an extension of time?
A. Saturday, May 27, 2000.
B. Monday, May 29, 2000 (a Federal holiday, Memorial Day).
C. Tuesday, May 30, 2000.
D. Wednesday, May 31, 2000.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A non-final Office action contains, among other things, a restriction requirement between two groups of claims, (Group 1 and Group 2). Which of the following, if included in a timely reply under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111, preserves applicant's right to petition the Commissioner to review the restriction requirement?,
I: Applicant's entire reply to the restriction requirement is: "The examiner erred in distinguishing between Group 1 and Group 2, and therefore the restriction requirement is respectfully traversed and no election is being made, in order that applicant's right to petition the Commissioner to review the restriction requirement is preserved.",
II: Applicant's entire reply to the restriction requirement is: "Applicant elects Group 1 and respectfully traverses the restriction requirement, because the examiner erred in requiring a restriction between Group 1 and Group 2.",
III: Applicant's reply distinctly points out detailed reasons why applicant believes the examiner erred in requiring a restriction between Group 1 and Group 2, and additionally sets forth, "Applicant therefore respectfully traverses the restriction requirement and no election is being made, in order that applicant's right to petition the Commissioner to review the restriction requirement is preserved.",
IV: Applicant's reply distinctly points out detailed reasons why applicant believes the examiner erred in requiring a restriction between Group 1 and Group 2, and additionally sets forth, "Applicant therefore respectfully traverses the restriction requirement and elects Group 2."
A. I.
B. II.
C. III.
D. IV.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Mario Lepieux was a member of a Canadian national hockey team touring Europe. While travelling through Germany (a WTO member country) in December 1998, Mario conceived of an aerodynamic design for a hockey helmet that offered players improved protection while reducing air resistance during skating. Upon Mario's return to Canada (a NAFTA country), he enlisted his brothers Luigi and Pepe Lepieux to help him market the product under the tradename "Wing Cap." On February 1, 1999, without Mario's knowledge or permission, Luigi anonymously published a promotional article written by Mario and fully disclosing how the Wing Cap was made and used. The promotional article was published in Moose Jaw Monthly, a regional Canadian magazine that is not distributed in the United States. The Wing Cap was first reduced to practice on March 17, 1999. A United States patent application properly naming Mario as the sole inventor was filed September 17, 1999. That application has now been rejected as being anticipated by the Moose Jaw Monthly article.Which of the following statements is most correct?
A. The promotional article cannot be used as prior art because the Wing Cap had not been reduced to practice at the time the article appeared in the regional Canadian magazine.
B. The regional Canadian magazine article is not prima facie prior art because it was published without Mario's knowledge or permission.
C. The regional Canadian magazine article is not prima facie prior art because it appeared in a regional Canadian publication and does not evidence knowledge or use in the United States.
D. The promotional article in the regional Canadian magazine constituted an offer to sell that operates as an absolute bar against Mario's patent application.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Mario Lepieux was a member of a Canadian national hockey team touring Europe. While travelling through Germany (a WTO member country) in December 1998, Mario conceived of an aerodynamic design for a hockey helmet that offered players improved protection while reducing air resistance during skating. Upon Mario's return to Canada (a NAFTA country), he enlisted his brothers Luigi and Pepe Lepieux to help him market the product under the tradename "Wing Cap." On February 1, 1999, without Mario's knowledge or permission, Luigi anonymously published a promotional article written by Mario and fully disclosing how the Wing Cap was made and used. The promotional article was published in Moose Jaw Monthly, a regional Canadian magazine that is not distributed in the United States. The Wing Cap was first reduced to practice on March 17, 1999. A United States patent application properly naming Mario as the sole inventor was filed September 17, 1999. That application has now been rejected as being anticipated by the Moose Jaw Monthly article. Which of the following statements is most correct?
A. In a priority contest against another inventor, Mario can rely on his activities in Canada in establishing a date of invention.
B. In a priority contest against another inventor, Mario can rely on his activities in Germany in establishing a date of invention.
C. Mario can rely on his activities in Canada in establishing a date of invention prior to publication of the regional Canadian magazine article.
D. (A) and (C).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: The specification of a patent application contains limited disclosure of using antisense technology in regulating three particular genes in E. coli cells. The specification contains three examples, each applying antisense technology to regulating one of the three particular genes in E. coli cells. Despite the limited disclosure, the specification states that the "the practices of this invention are generally applicable with respect to any organism containing genetic material capable of being expressed such as bacteria, yeast, and other cellular organisms." All of the original claims in the application are broadly directed to the application of antisense technology to any cell. No claim is directed to applying antisense technology to regulating any of the three particular genes in E. coli cells. The examiner rejects the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of enablement citing a publication that correctly notes antisense technology is highly unpredicable, requiring experimentation to ascertain whether the technology works in each type of cell. The publication cites the inventor's own articles (published after the application was filed) that include examples of the inventor's own failures to control the expressions of other genes in E. coli and other types of cells. The rejection is:
A. appropriate. The claims are not commensurate in scope with the breadth of enablement inasmuch as the working examples in the application are narrow compared to the wide breadth of the claims, the unpredictability of the technology, the high quantity of experimentation needed to practice the technology in cells other than E. coli.
B. appropriate. The claims are not commensurate in scope with the breadth of the enablement inasmuch as no information is provided proving the technology is safe when applied to animal consumption.
C. inappropriate. The claims are commensurate in scope with the breadth of enablement inasmuch as the specification discloses that the "the practices of this invention are generally applicable with respect to any organism containing genetic material capable of being expressed."
D. inappropriate. The claims are commensurate in scope with the breadth of enablement inasmuch as the claims are original, and therefore are self-supporting.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On August 7, 1997, practitioner Costello filed a patent application identifying Laurel, Abbot, and Hardy as inventors. Each named inventor assigned his patent rights to Burns just prior to the application being filed. Laurel and Abbot, alone, jointly invented the subject matter of independent claim 1 in the application. Hardy contributed to inventing the subject matter of claim 2. Claim 2 properly depends upon claim 1. The examiner rejected claim 1 and claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by a journal article by Allen, dated July 9, 1997. Laurel, Abbot, and Hardy are readily available to provide evidence in support of and sign an antedating affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 showing reduction to practice of the subject matter of claims 1 and 2 prior to July 9, 1997. Which of the following may properly make an affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 to overcome the rejection of claims 1 and 2?
A. Laurel and Abbot.
B. Laurel, Abbot, and Hardy.
C. Laurel, Hardy and Burns.
D. Burns only.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: On February 1, 1999, while vacationing in Viet Nam (which is not a WTO member), Sal, a U.S. citizen, invents a spinning top with a spring mounted within the axle that flips the top every 10 revolutions. Sal sells several tops to Nat just prior to leaving Viet Nam on March 15, 1999. Nat immediately begins making and selling the tops in Viet Nam through the Vietnamese firm of Natasha. On March 1, 2000, Natasha begins selling the tops in the United States. On the way back from Viet Nam, Sal visits several remote islands and doesn't return to the U.S. until April 10, 2000, when he visits his your office to obtain advice as to filing a patent application. What do you, a registered practitioner, tell him on April 12, 2000, in accordance with proper PTO practice and procedure?
A. The public sale on March 15, 1999 does not operate as a statutory bar since it did not occur in the U.S., and less than one year has passed since the sale in the U.S. by Natasha, Sal may file a patent application in the PTO before March 1, 2001, and then file an affidavit and swear behind the March 1, 2000 sale by Natasha.
B. Since none of the acts by which the invention was derived were performed in the United States, Sal cannot prove a date of invention prior to April 2000. Therefore his patent is defeated by the knowledge of others as a result of the public sale in the U.S. by Natasha on March 1, 2000.
C. Since Sal is a U.S. citizen only temporarily visiting the foreign country of Viet Nam, he is entitled to claim a date of invention of February 1, 1998, since 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is not limited to the U.S.
D. Since Sal did not authorize the sale of tops in the United States, the March 1, 2000 sale by Natasha cannot be used as prior art against him.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: A patent specification discloses a personal computer comprising a microprocessor and a random access memory. There is no disclosure in the specification of the minimum amount of storage for the random access memory. In the disclosed preferred embodiment, the microprocessor has a clock speed of 100-200 megahertz. Claims 9 and 10, presented below, are original claims in the application. Claim 11, presented below, was added by amendment after an Office action. 9. A personal computer comprising a microprocessor and a random access memory including at least 1 gigabyte of storage. 10. The personal computer of Claim 9, wherein the microprocessor has a clock speed of 100-200 megahertz. 11. The personal computer of Claim 10, wherein the random access memory is greater than 陆 gigabyte of storage. Which of the following statements is or are true about the respective claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph?
A. Claim 9 is a proper independent claim, and Claims 10 and 11 are proper dependent claims.
B. Claim 9 is a proper independent claim, and Claims 10 and 11 are improper dependent claims.
C. Claim 9 is an improper independent claim, and Claims 10 and 11 are improper dependent claims.
D. Claim 9 is an improper independent claim, and Claims 10 and 11 are proper dependent claims.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Smith invented a laminate. In a patent application, Smith most broadly disclosed the laminate as comprising a transparent protective layer in continuous, direct contact with a light-sensitive layer without any intermediate layer between the transparent protective layer and the light-sensitive layer. The prior art published two years before the effective filing date of Smith's application included a laminate containing a transparent protective layer and a light-sensitive layer held together by an intermediate adhesive layer. Which of the following is a proper claim that would overcome a 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection based on the prior art?
A. 1. A laminate comprising a transparent protective layer and a light-sensitive layer.
B. 1. A laminate comprising a transparent protective layer and a light-sensitive layer which is in continuous and direct contact with the transparent protective layer.
C. 1. A laminate comprising a transparent protective layer and a light-sensitive layer, but not including an adhesive layer.
D. (A) and (B).
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)
Question: Which of the following is NOT a policy underlying the public use bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)?
A. Discouraging the removal, from the public domain, of inventions that the public reasonably has come to believe are freely available.
B. Favoring the prompt and widespread disclosure of inventions.
C. Allowing the inventor(s) a reasonable amount of time following sales activity to determine the potential economic value of a patent.
D. Increasing the economic value of a patent by extending the effective term of the patent up to one year.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)