Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/60974040/OCT-2002-AM-Answers
Timestamp: 2016-09-30 22:31:19
Document Index: 706108057

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 409', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 409', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 1', '§ 608', '§ 1', '§ 112', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 706', '§ 1', '§ 706', '§ 1', '§ 706', '§ 804', '§ 102', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 715', '§ 1', '§ 606', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 804', '§ 804', '§ 1', '§ 715', '§ 1', '§ 2112', '§ 715', '§ 706', '§ 1503', '§ 102', '§ 1', '§ 715', '§ 1210', '§ 606', '§ 804', '§ 804', '§ 1', '§ 804', '§ 714', '§ 1412', '§ 2144', '§ 714', '§ 2131', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1503', '§ 804', '§ 2131', '§ 1', '§ 1503', '§ 714', '§ 102', '§ 1', '§ 714', '§ 2181', '§ 102', '§ 607', '§ 608', '§ 707', '§ 104', '§102', '§ 102', '§ 112', '§ 1', '§ 706', '§ 607', '§ 607', '§ 706', '§ 2164', '§ 103', '§ 301', '§ 1', '§ 707', '§ 608', '§ 2141', '§ 102', '§ 608', '§ 608', '§ 2144', '§ 716', '§ 608', '§ 716', '§ 2111', '§ 607', '§ 2145', '§ 103', '§ 102', '§ 608', '§ 2145', '§ 608', '§ 607', '§ 1', '§ 711', '§ 102', '§ 608', '§ 2112', '§ 706', '§ 601', '§ 2113', '§ 706', '§ 112', '§ 131', '§ 2111', '§ 201', '§ 102', '§ 1', '§ 608', '§ 120', '§ 608', '§ 2111', '§ 608', '§ 2111', '§ 201', '§ 154', '§ 608', '§ 608', '§ 608', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 112', '§ 608', '§ 261', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 714', '§ 2143', '§ 2143', '§ 112', '§ 608', '§ 706', '§ 2143', '§ 1', '§ 608', '§ 2143', '§ 306', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 261', '§ 608', '§ 608', '§ 2106', '§ 2106', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2106', '§ 804', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 103', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§1', '§ 1', '§ 502', '§ 2106', '§ 1', '§1', '§ 103', '§ 1', '§ 2106', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 502', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 306', '§ 1', '§ 251', '§ 1', '§ 5', '§ 1412', '§ 1412', '§ 1412', '§ 1412']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicUnited States Patent and Trademark Office Registration Examination for Patent Attorneys and Agents October 16, 2002Morning Session Model Answers 1. ANSWER: Choice (C) is the correct answer. MPEP § 409.03(a), and 37 C.F.R. § 1.47(a). 37 C.F.R. § 1.47(a) provides, “If a joint inventor refuses to join in an application for patent or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, the application may be made by the other inventor on behalf of himself or herself and the nonsigning inventor. The oath or declaration in such an application must be accompanied by a petition including proof of the pertinent facts, the fee set forth in § 1.17(h), and the last known address of the nonsigning inventor. The nonsigning inventor may subsequently join in the application by filing an oath or declaration complying with § 1.63.” Choices (A), (B), and (D) are each incorrect because they are not provided for by 37 C.F.R. § 1.47(a). MPEP § 409.03 (b), in pertinent part provides, “Where 37 C.F.R. § 1.47(a) is available, application cannot be made under 37 C.F.R. § 1.47(b).” Choice (E) is incorrect because choices (A), (B), and (D) are each incorrect. 2. ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. See, “Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, ‘Written Description’ Requirement,” 66 F.R. 1099, 1105 (Jan. 5, 2001) left column, first paragraph. “The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature that is not described in the specification and is not conventional in the art or known to one of ordinary skill in the art.” (A) is not the most correct answer. See, “Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, ‘Written Description’ Requirement,” 66 F.R. 1099, 1104 (Jan. 5, 2001) right column, last paragraph. Describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention is a means of showing possession of the invention. (B) is not the most correct answer. See, “Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, ‘Written Description’ Requirement,” 66 F.R. 1099, 1104 (Jan. 5, 2001) right column, last paragraph. (D) is not the most correct answer. See, “Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, ‘Written Description’ Requirement,” 66 F.R. 1099, 1105 (Jan. 5, 2001), left column, second paragraph, which states, “While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claim limitations must be supported by in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure.” (E) is not the most correct answer. See, “Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, ‘Written Description’ Requirement,” 66 F.R. 1099, 1105 (Jan. 5, 2001), left column, second paragraph, which states, “An amendment to correct an obvious error does not constitute new matter where one skilled in the art would not only recognize the existence of the error in the specification, but also recognize the appropriate correction.” 3. ANSWER: (E). There is no such requirement. As to (C), see 37 C.F.R. § 1.52(b). As to (A) through (D) see MPEP § 608.01(m). 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(i). 4. ANSWER: The most correct answer is (E). A dependent claim must further limit the claim from which it depends. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶4; 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c). Dependent claim 6 (Answer E) improperly seeks to broaden Claim 1 by omitting an element set forth in the parent claim. 5. ANSWER: (C) is most correct. 37 C.F.R. § 1.181; MPEP § 706.07(c). (A) and (B) are wrong. 37 C.F.R. § 1.181(a)(1); MPEP § 706.07(c). Prematureness of a final rejection is not appealable. 37 C.F.R. § 1.191(a). (D) and (E) are wrong because MPEP § 706.07(c) states, 1
227 USPQ 773 (Fed.F. if at all.” (A) is not correct because it is a true statement. 37 C. while the application is still pending before the primary examiner. MPEP § 804. As to (E).01 cites Titanium Metals Corp.R.F.C.” Choice (C) is further incorrect since a nonstatutory double patenting rejection can be based on the claims not being patentably distinct.02. 2002 Examination
“Any question as to prematureness of a final rejection should be raised.S. § 102(d) as in (B) or a statutory bar under 35 U.104(c)(3). “it was immaterial what properties the alloys had…because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.C.” Choice (E) is incorrect because choices (A). V. ANSWER: (E) is the correct answer.” (A) and (C) are wrong because 37 C. “The use of a 37 C. § 1. (C) is incorrect because an affidavit under 37 C. “Photographs and Color Drawings.’ It is also inapplicable if there is a lack of ‘patentable distinctness’ between the claimed subject matter.R. § 1. subpart (II) reads. and (D) are each incorrect. reads. MPEP § 715.F.R. 7. claiming the same invention.131 is inapplicable if the claims of the application and the patent are ‘directed to substantially the same invention. (C). 10. patent to the same entity.02. not 10 words.131 affidavit in overcoming a double patenting rejection is inappropriate…37 C.F. As to (A). § 1. 600-50.131 is not appropriate where the reference is a statutory bar under 35 U. 9.01 on p. see MPEP §§ 606 and 606. 6. ANSWER: (D) is the most correct answer. “Photographs and ink drawings are not permitted to be combined as formal drawings in one 2
. § 1. § 1.F. ANSWER: Choice (B) is the correct answer. Cir.152 states. § 1.S. and (E) are not the most correct answers. (B) and (D) are each incorrect because an affidavit under 37 C. 11.R. MPEP § 804. MPEP § 804. Each is recognized as being a “submission” within the scope of 37 C. § 1.R. “Double patenting may exist between an issued patent and an application filed by the same inventive entity. MPEP § 715.F. Banner.R. § 1. MPEP § 2112.2d 660. MPEP § 715. (C) and (D). MPEP § 706. (C).F. ANSWER: (B) is best choice because it is a false statement.114(d). as stating. The statement finds support in MPEP § 1503. § 102(b) as in (D). § 1. last sentence. 8. 1985). (B).131 is not appropriate where the reference is a prior U.F. (A) is incorrect because an affidavit under 37 C.02. 778 F. (D) and (E) are incorrect because the stated reliance is permitted.R. (C). “A rejection based on a nonstatutory type of double patenting can be avoided by filing a terminal disclaimer in the application or proceeding in which the rejection is made. MPEP § 715.” MPEP § 1210 indicates that jurisdiction is before the Board at the times set forth in (D) and (E).F.131 is not appropriate where applicant has clearly admitted on the record that subject matter relied on in the reference is prior art.R. See MPEP § 606. ANSWER: (E) is correct. the title can be amended by the examiner. subpart (I)(A) reads. or by an inventive entity having a common inventor with the patent. subpart (II)(B)(1). v. (A).” Choices (A) and (C) are each incorrect.October 16.114(c).S.R. ANSWER: (B) is the most correct answer inasmuch as the title needs to be technically accurate and the limitation is 500 characters. Choice (D) is incorrect because MPEP § 804. 37 C.
Applicant’s Action).121(c) and (d). 60 USPQ 239 (CCPA 1943). U. reads. Choice (B) is incorrect because MPEP § 804. Answers (A) and (B) are therefore both correct. page 700-196. 197 (8th Ed. § 1. (B) is incorrect. MPEP § 804. and (E) is the best response. Applicants have the opportunity to consolidate all previous versions of pending claims from a 3
. MPEP § 714. I is incorrect because an applicant must seasonably traverse the well-know statement or the object of the well-known statement is taken to be admitted prior art. (C). (A) is incorrect. ANSWER: The most correct answer is (E).131 affidavit in overcoming a statutory double patenting rejection is inappropriate. but will not be able to obtain an extension beyond the six-month statutory deadline.F. 179 USPQ 421. In re Chevenard. “A rejection based on the statutory type of double patenting can be avoided by amending the conflicting claims so that they are not coextensive in scope. ANSWER: (A) is the most correct answer. No further extension of time or new time periods which might serve to extend the six month statutory period will be set in the advisory action. See MPEP § 1412.03.October 16.R.R.48 are not available to correct inventorship in an issued patent. (A). ANSWER: The best choice is (E).R.02. the facts of the question show that Inventor A is not in agreement. MPEP § 2144.02. MPEP § 714. 14. MPEP § 2131. “A terminal disclaimer is not effective in overcoming a statutory double patenting rejection. In re Self.F. 15. (A) alone is not correct.R. 13. 12. § 1. page 700-169 through 172 (8th Ed. the reissue application may be filed more than two years after the patent issued. reads. Therefore (C) is incorrect.152 states. 7 (CCPA 1982).) (Amendments. (B).22. III is incorrect because the action can potentially be made final. 213 USPQ 1. Although a certificate of correction may be used to correct inventorship where all parties are in agreement. Therefore (B) and (D) are incorrect. page 700-198.05. “Photographs submitted in lieu of ink drawings in design patent applications must not disclose environmental structure but must be limited to the design claimed for the article. and see Twin Disc.04. S.F.F. § 1. ANSWER: (E) is the most correct answer. 231 USPQ 417.) (Entry of Amendments). Ct. (B) and (D) are wrong because 37 C.04 and see In re Wiggins.” Reproduced in MPEP § 1503..22(a). Choice (C) is thus not an available option for MegaCorp.02. 16. If time remains in the period set in the final rejection.02.” Choice (E) is incorrect because choices (A). “The use of a 37 C. Choice (D) is incorrect because the provisions of 37 C.” Choice (C) is further incorrect since the statutory double patenting rejection is based on the conflicting claims being coextensive in scope. 2002 Examination
application.” Choices (A) and (C) are each incorrect because MPEP § 804. 37 C. (Amendments Consolidating All Claims). reads.02. MPEP § 2131. § 1. applicants may resubmit the amendment. ANSWER: Choice (D) is the correct answer. (C) and (D) are not in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure.” Reproduced in MPEP § 1503. Reissue is a proper vehicle for correcting inventorship in a patent. 1986). (B). Because correction of inventorship does not enlarge the scope of the patent claims. and (C) are each incorrect. 425 (CCPA 1973). and MPEP § 714. 424 (Cl. (E) is incorrect because (A) is correct. and (D) are not correct. Inc. Applicant may resubmit the amendment within any remaining period of time (set in the final rejection). (B). v. or request an extension of time (with appropriate fee) in which to do so.
2000 which have been voluntarily published.C. This requirement is regardless of the mailing date of the Office action. § 102(b) as of the date it reached the addressee and not the date it was placed in the mail. 22.S. “For the purpose of anticipation predicated upon prior knowledge under 35 U.S.R. that limitation must 4
. and certain international application publications can be used as prior art under 35 U.02 at p. ANSWER: The most correct answer is (E).26.R. though the entire clean claim set is subject to the provisions of 37 C.S.02(a). 17.F. (B). § 1.05(f) states.S. patents.05(f) states. MPEP § 714.C.” (D) and (E) are wrong. 35 U.R. the date of release following declassification is the effective date of publication within the meaning of the statute.” (A) is wrong. MPEP § 2181 expressly requires that for a claim limitation to be interpreted in accordance with 35 U. 23. paragraph 6. § 102(e) based on their earliest effective filing date against applications filed on or after November 29. As to (B) through (E) see MPEP § 607. ANSWER: (C) is correct. page 700-169 through 172 (8th Ed. 19.C.) (Amendments. 600-51. ANSWER: (E) is incorrect as a preliminary amendment may be filed with the original disclosure and will be treated as part of the original disclosure in accordance with MPEP § 608. “A magazine is effective as a printed publication under 35 U. MPEP § 707. Applicant’s Action) While the first portion of the answer is correct because amendments to the drawings must be submitted on a separate paper showing the proposed changes in red for to the specification including the claims must be made by replacement paragraph/section/claim in clean form.01(c). § 104.04(b) (A) through (D) are all correct. 600-51. (B). §102(a) the above noted declassified material may be taken as prima facie evidence of such prior knowledge as of its printing date even though such material was classified at that time. (D) and (E).14(e)(2). ANSWER: (D) is correct.S.S.116(b) and 1.” (B) is wrong. “In the use of [declassified material] … as an anticipatory publication. § 102(e) to provide that U. § 112. 20. 2002 Examination
series of separate amendment papers into a single clean version in a single amendment paper. § 1. MPEP § 706. See MPEP § 607. see MPEP § 607. As to (A).S. MPEP § 706. application publications.02. MPEP § 2164. (C) and (E) are wrong and (D) is correct. and applications filed prior to November 29. ANSWER: (E) is the most correct answer. 37 C. MPEP § 103.312. and the division issued as a patent. causing the application to be open to inspection. ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer.October 16.S. 18. application files are available upon request because the divisional application refers to the abandoned parent application. Thomas may rely on activities in both Germany (a WTO member country) and Canada (a NAFTA country) in establishing a date of invention prior to publication of the Saskatoon Times article or in establishing priority.01. 21. MPEP § 301. (C) is incorrect. §§ 1. MPEP § 707.02(a) states.C.C.01(a). see also MPEP 715. ANSWER: (A) is the best answer as there is no provision regarding one year from discovery in 37 C. 600-53. U. (A) is wrong. The AIPA amended 35 U.F. 2000.F. The Office will refund amounts of twenty-five dollars or less if requested to do so by the applicant. See MPEP § 608 at p. This may be done at any time during prosecution of the application.C.02 at p.
John Deere Co.05.S. 35 U.. As to (D). 145 USPQ 716. The burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. Claim 3 in answer (C) employs improper multiple dependent claim wording. The four factual inquiries are set forth in answers (A). 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968). MPEP § 2141. (C). 35 U. 2002 Examination
(1) use the phrase “means for”. 346 F. (B). Affidavits or declarations containing objective evidence of criticality. Cir.C. is considered by an examiner. In re Wiseman. § 102(d). (A). (E) is incorrect because (C) is correct. See MPEP § 608.01(n)(I)(A).02 provides that the preamble generally is not accorded patentable weight where it merely recites the intended use of a structure.3d 746. 750. 1. ANSWER: (C) is the correct answer. 596 F. (B). In re Soni. (D) and (E). unexpected results. MPEP § 608. MPEP § 2144.2d 1019.01(a). (A) is incorrect. 1687 (Fed. 35 U. 5
. In the above fact pattern. 602.01(b). 148 USPQ 459 (1966). subsection styled “Attorney Arguments Cannot Take The Place of Evidence”. (D) is wrong because it does not use the phrase “means for” and also recites structure modifying “mechanism. (D) is incorrect because the Japanese patent application issued after the date of Ted’s application. ANSWER: The most correct answer is (B).October 16. MPEP § 716. skepticism of experts.01(b). and also fails to modify the “means” with functional language. and (3) the “means for” must not be modified by sufficient structure for achieving the specified function. ANSWER: (C) is the correct answer. part I. (B) is incorrect because the patent is not more than one year prior to the date of the Ted’s application. 1995). subsection II. ANSWER: (E). ANSWER: (C) is incorrect as the Office will refund amounts of twenty-five dollars or less if requested to do so by the applicant. 54 F. long-felt but unsolved needs. (A) is wrong because it does not use the phrase “means for” and recites structure for achieving the specified function (“printer”). MPEP § 608. As to (A) through (C). only answer choice (C) satisfies the above requirements. MPEP § 716. MPEP § 2111. 25.01(b). see MPEP § 607. (2) the “means for” must be modified by functional language. The abstract should not compare the invention with the prior art.” 24. Resolving any issue of indefiniteness in favor of clarity is not among the factual inquiries enunciated in Graham. (B) is wrong because it modifies the “means” with structure. As to (A). All answers accepted. MPEP § 2145. when the process for making is not obvious. (E) is incorrect. 29. 718 (CCPA 1965).C. and (E). 2145. ANSWER: (B). 26. 34 USPQ2d 1684. commercial success. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. (A) is incorrect because it does not disclose an oxygen sensor. 27.02. (D). § 103. 600-51. § 102(b). 28.S. 399 F.2d 269. the process should be set forth in the abstract. see MPEP § 608. subsections II and III. In re Schulze. 383 U. failure of others. (C) is incorrect. MPEP § 2145. MPEP § 608. (D) is incorrect. (D). Graham v.01(n)(I)(B). 30.S.C.S. In re Hoeksema.2d 600. 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979) (finding that mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render a known invention unobvious). and (E) are incorrect as each uses acceptable multiple dependent claim wording.01(c).02 at p. See MPEP § 607.
§ 1. 619 F. 32. and MPEP § 711. See In re Malagari. 553 (CCPA 1974). (D) and (E) are wrong. 2002 Examination
31. ANSWER: (A) is the most correct answer. 499 F.07(f).2d 67. (C) is not the proper choice because evidence of unexpected results is not relevant to anticipation. ANSWER: (E) is correct because 35 U.2d 1297. states. 1985). § 102(b) is a statutory bar to patentability.” In (A).01(n).R. 70. See In re Fitzgerald. subsection I A. 195 USPQ 430. MPEP § 608.2d 695.2d 1252. and MPEP § 2112. 227 USPQ 964. 33. (D) and (E) are wrong because MPEP § 706. an examiner’s amendment to place the application in condition for allowance may be made without the payment of extension fees even if the examiner’s amendment is made more than 3 months from the date of the final Office action. 562 F.03(c).
.01(d). part (H). 777 F. 205 USPQ 594. 433-34 (CCPA 1977). ANSWER: (A) is correct and (B). 182 USPQ 549. In re Best. 697.07(f). “Note that an examiner’s amendment may not be made more than 6 months from the date of the final Office action. not on the process of making it. states.S. the examiner’s amendment would be made more than 6 months after the Office action. the burden shifts to the applicant to overcome the rejection by providing evidence that the prior art product does not necessarily or inherently possess a relied-upon characteristic of the applicant’s claimed product. See In re Thorpe.C. 966 (Fed. 596 (CCPA 1980). MPEP § 601.C. (C). “Where a complete first reply to a final Office action has been filed within 2 months of the final Office action. part (H). and MPEP § 2113. 1302. and 37 C. Cir.October 16.S. when an examiner’s amendment is mailed exactly 5 months after Xavier’s reply. 34. ANSWER: (C) is correct and (B) is wrong because MPEP § 706. § 112 authorizes multiple dependent claims as long as they are in the alternative form. 1255.” (A).F. as the application would be abandoned at that point by operation of law.131(a)(2) states that § 131 cannot be used to establish prior invention when the rejection is based upon a statutory bar. (E) is not the proper choice because a rejection under 35 U. (B) and (D) are not proper choices because when evidence indicates that the applicant’s product and that of the prior art are identical or substantially identical. The patentability of a product-by-process claim is determined based on the product itself.
“[t]he claim should not be attacked either by objection or rejection because this subject matter is lacking in the drawing and description.” MPEP § 2111.01(l).75(c). (D). it is not in accord with MPEP § 201. ANSWER: (D) is the most correct answer. (B). Its availability as prior art under § 102(b) depends upon proof of when the reference was “published” or became publicly accessible. but instead before patenting of the first application.S. and (E).(E) is incorrect because (A). 121. Here. Thus. the examiner generally should make any necessary revisions by examiner’s amendment rather than issuing an Ex parte Quayle action requiring applicant to make the necessary revisions.R. and (E). 38. § 1. product and process claims should be separately grouped. ANSWER: (C).. According to MPEP § 608.03. (B) is incorrect because (1) the database retrieval date is after applicant’s filing date.” more than 1 year before applicant’s filing date. §§ 120. As indicated in MPEP § 608. The phrase “consisting of” excludes any step not specified in the claim. As to (A). if an application is otherwise in condition for allowance except that the abstract does not comply with the guidelines. 40. (2) the printout does not include the date on which the MEDLINE abstract was publicly posted and (3) reliance is on the printout per se not the actual article (reliance on the actual article would require getting the article and an English translation as well as determining the date when the journal was publicly available).03. The examiner was unable to determine the actual date of publication.01(b). ANSWER: (A) is the correct answer. unrecited steps. Id.”). i. (A) is a USPTO recommendation.” As to (A).e.F. ANSWER: (C). MPEP § 2111. 37 C.01(m) (“Similarly. calling the patent application a continuation-in-part will result in the application having its patent term calculated from its filing date. 35 U. (B).08. 37. (B) and (C) are incorrect 39. (D) is the correct answer because the Japanese patent application was published.03. see MPEP § 608. Answer (B) is incorrect because the transitional term “comprising” is inclusive or openended and does not exclude additional. 2002 Examination
35. A reference is a “printed publication” if one of ordinary skill in the art can locate it with reasonable diligence.October 16.C. MPEP § 2111. (A) through (C) are found in MPEP § 201. § 154(a)(2) and (a)(3). Answer (E) is incorrect because Answer (C) and Answer (D) are incorrect. 36. See MPEP § 608. provided a specific reference is made to the earlier filed application(s).08 since the application need not be filed before a notice of allowance.S. ANSWER: (E). As to (D). a claim that depends from a claim which “consists of” the recited steps cannot add a step. (D). (C) is incorrect because it was posted or published less than one year after applicant’s filing date. see MPEP § 608.01(b).C. or 365(c) will have its patent term calculated from the date on which the earliest application was filed. Answers (C) and (D) are incorrect because the terms “including” and “characterized by” are synonymous with the term “comprising. (B) is a USPTO recommendation.01(m) (“Claims should preferably be arranged in order of scope so that the first claim presented is the least 7
. As to (E). The USPTO does not require or recommend a minimum or maximum number of dependent claims. See MPEP § 608. “laid open. ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. the dependent claim adds the step of cooling.01(l). (A) is incorrect because there is no evidence when the journal was publicly available. Here. An application filed under 35 U.
and see In re Wilson.R. 37 C. § 1.F.07(f). U. The assignment to ABC Corporation carries with it the transfer of the bundle of rights associated with subject matter common to the original patent 8
.07(f). § 1.116(a).C.4. ANSWER: (C) is a false statement and therefore the correct answer. § 112 and MPEP § 608. § 261. (Indefinite Limitations Must Be Considered).03 (Indefinite Limitations Must Be Considered). (B) is not correct because it is proper procedure to be followed by an examiner. (A). 42. (D) is wrong. MPEP § 706. MPEP § 706. and (D).C. grant. MPEP § 714.S.S.07(f).October 16.07(f). & Inter. 44. (D) is not correct because it is proper procedure to be followed by an examiner. subpart I. ANSWER: (A) is the most correct answer. (Limitations Which Do Not Find Support In The Original Specification Must Be Considered). 41. (D) is a PTO recommendation. subpart I. (C) is wrong. MPEP § 2143. 1983).07(f). ABC Corporation’s recordation of its assignment gave constructive notice to XYZ Corporation. a prior assignment recorded against the original application is applied to the division…application because the assignment recorded against the original application gives the assignee rights to the subject matter common to both applications. 738 F. App.4.13. MPEP § 2143. (B). 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970) (if no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain claim language. App. not obvious). the claim is indefinite..116. 2002 Examination
restrictive. § 112 and MPEP § 608. aff’d mem. or conveyance shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for a valuable consideration.S. 222 USPQ 537 (Bd. paragraph (M).03.B. Under 35 U. part IV. paragraph (H). (C). (E) is a USPTO requirement. paragraph (N). and see Ex parte Ionescu.C. “An assignment. subpart I.”).” (C) is correct because ABC Corporation acquired all of John’s ownership rights in the original patent application.2d 453 (Fed. including the subcombination claimed in the original nonprovisional and divisional patent applications. The answer is inconsistent with 35 U. The assignment of the rights to ABC Corporation was recorded in the USPTO prior to the subsequent acquisition of the subcombination by XYZ Corporation. MPEP § 706.01(n). (B).03.01(n).R. MPEP § 2143. § 1. ANSWER: (A) is correct. (D) is wrong because it is consistent with MPEP § 608.01(n). (C) is not correct because it is proper procedure to be followed by an examiner. (Indefinite Limitations Must Be Considered). (B) is wrong.01(m) (“Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. MPEP § 2143. Cir.01(n). MPEP § 306 recites that in the case of a division…application.F. (F) is wrong. unless it is recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office within three months from its date or prior to the date of such subsequent purchase or mortgage. and are not in accord with 37 C.”). C. paragraph (I). The reply in (D) is directed to a reply permitted to be made under 37 C. 1984).F. MPEP § 706.03. John gave up his ownership rights when he executed the assignment to ABC Corporation. ANSWER: (D). MPEP § 706. 45. and (C) are directed to the merits of the application. and see Ex parte Grasselli. and (E) are wrong answers because they are consistent with 35 U.S. 43.C. ANSWER: The most correct answer is (A). 700118]. paragraph (O). 231 USPQ 393 (Bd.B.116(a). 1984). Pat. (A) and (B) are true statements and therefore wrong answers. § 261. (E) is incorrect because the examiner may properly take the actions set forth in (B). See MPEP § 608. without notice.R. Entry Not Matter of Right [p. See MPEP § 608. (C).
R. e. is the date the complete transmission is received by an Office facsimile unit…An applicant filing a CPA by facsimile transmission must include an authorization to charge the basic filing fee to a deposit account or to a credit card.F. MPEP § 2106.C.132)).F. “Since the analysis employed in an obviousness-type double patenting determination parallels the guidelines for a 35 U.R. if submitted.F. (B).F.F.99(e) recites. 138 USPQ 459 (1966).132)). 2.R. MPEP § 2106.R. answer (D) is correct and answers (A). “Facsimile transmissions are not permitted and. ANSWER: (D) is correct. § 1. § 1. and see In re Brandstadter.” Therefore.F.D.53(d). John Deere Co. and 37 C. “Facsimile transmissions are not permitted and. whichever is earlier. 140 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1964).F. (D) is not correct. and In re Gunn. including a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 C.R.6(d)(3). 406 (CCPA 1976).F. 1. MPEP § 2106.72. MPEP § 804. and In re Cole. “A submission under this section must be filed within two months from the date of publication of the application (§ 1.R. § 1.85.C..01 reads.165.02 (Affidavit Practice (37 C.02 (Arguments of Counsel). and (C) are incorrect. In re Schulze. 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973).R.” Choice (A) is incorrect because 37 C.6(d) states. § 103(a) rejection. 200 USPQ 276. 2.” Each of choices (A). 200 USPQ 276.” 47.D.99(e). § 1.S. or 2. and see Hirschfield v. Banner. if submitted.02. (B). 145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965).437.83 through 1. 1. § 1.S.” Choice (B) is incorrect because 37 C. 48.152. if submitted. will not be accorded a date of receipt in the following situations: …(5) A request for reexamination under §1.02 (Affidavit Practice (37 C.02 (Affidavit Practice (37 C.October 16.01. (Referencing Prior Art Documents). § 1.C. 37 C. “A submission by a member of the public to a pending published application that does not comply with the requirements of this section will be returned or discarded. MPEP § 502. 1. (D) and (E) are true statements and therefore wrong answers because XYZ Corporation acquired no rights in the original or divisional patent applications. MPEP § 2106.51. that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U. the divisional patent application. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. (D) is correct because 37 C. 1.81. will not be accorded a date of receipt in the following situations: …(4) Drawings submitted under §§ 1. ANSWER: The most correct answer is (A).913. 1978).” Choice (C) is incorrect because 37 C.. reads. 424 (CCPA 1976). and see In re Budnick.6(d) also states. (B) is not correct.S.g. §1. See Hirschfield v. 1978). § 103 are employed when making an obvious-type double patenting analysis.F. § 1. MPEP § 2106. (E) is not correct.174. 1. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. 46. 190 USPQ 422.510 or § 1. § 1. subpart (II)(B)(1). 1. Banner. the factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. 281 (D.F.R. 190 USPQ 402. § 1. (C) is not correct.C.F.R. 383 U. will not be 9
. 281 (D. ANSWER: Choice (E) is the correct answer. 190 USPQ 422. “Facsimile transmissions are not permitted and.99(e) provides. and (D) is incorrect because it is a factual inquiry set forth in Graham v.6(d) also states.311).R. MPEP § 502. (E) is wrong because 37 C. 49. and see In re Budnick.52.215(a)) or prior to the mailing of a notice of allowance (§ 1. 2002 Examination
application.R. Factual evidence directed to the amount of time and effort and level of knowledge required for the practice of the invention from the disclosure alone can rebut a prima facie case of nonenablement. § 1.132)). ANSWER: Choice (E) is the correct answer. 424 (CCPA 1976). (C). John Deere Co. “The date of receipt accorded to any correspondence permitted to be sent by facsimile transmission. MPEP § 306.
8(a)(2)(i)(A)…” 37 C. Cir. 1997).03. Sockman. In re Doll.
. § 1.8(a)(2)(i)(A) reads. § 251 prescribes a 2-year limit for filing applications for broadening reissues.R. 220 (CCPA 1970).03. 1473-74 (Fed. 164 USPQ 218. 42 USPQ2d 1471.October 16.” 50.S. “The filing of a national patent application specification and drawing or other correspondence for the purpose of obtaining an application filing date…” Choice (D) is incorrect because 37 C. 142 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1964). 2002 Examination
accorded a date of receipt in the following situations: …(3) Correspondence which cannot receive the benefit of the certificate of mailing or transmission as specified in 1. In re Fotland. (E) is wrong because there was no intent to broaden indicated within the two years. § 1. will not be accorded a date of receipt in the following situations: …(6) Correspondence to be filed in a patent application subject to a secrecy order under §§ 5. it is necessary that an intent to broaden be indicated in the reissue application within the two years from the patent grant. (B) is wrong because 35 U. In re Graff. Cir. 228 USPQ 193 (Fed. (D) is wrong because a proposal for broadened claims must be made in the parent reissue application within two years from the grant of the original patent MPEP § 1412.03. “Facsimile transmissions are not permitted and. holds that while a reissue application filed on the 2-year anniversary date from the patent grant is considered to be filed within 2 years of the patent grant. if submitted.F. MPEP § 1412.1 through 5. MPEP § 1412. (C) is wrong because although Switzer v.5 of this chapter and directly related to the secrecy order content of the application. ANSWER: (A) is correct. MPEP § 1412.R. 1985).03.6(d) also states.C.F.
AboutBrowse booksSite directoryAbout ScribdMeet the teamOur blogJoin our team!Contact UsPartnersPublishersDevelopers / APILegalTermsPrivacyCopyrightSupportHelpFAQAccessibilityPressPurchase helpAdChoicesMembershipsJoin todayInvite FriendsGiftsCopyright © 2016 Scribd Inc. .Terms of service.Accessibility.Privacy.Mobile Site.Site Language: English中文EspañolالعربيةPortuguês日本語DeutschFrançaisTurkceРусский языкTiếng việtJęzyk polskiBahasa indonesiaOCT 2002 AM - Answers by Verena Streber6 viewsEmbedRelated interestsPatent, patent, United States Code, Patent Application, Title 35 Of The United States CodeDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)List price: $0.00Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
Documents similar to OCT 2002 AM - AnswersSelect Brands v. Sensio - MTS Briefby slbursteinEugene A. Wahl and Vibra Screw, Incorporated v. Rexnord, Inc, 624 F.2d 1169, 3rd Cir. (1980)by Scribd Government DocsMiller v. Brass Co., 104 U.S. 350 (1882)by Scribd Government DocsBooks similar to OCT 2002 AM - AnswersGreat Invention! Now What?: Evaluate, patent, trademark, and license your new inventionby Charles B. McGoughAlkyl Polyglucosides: From Natural-origin Surfactants to Prospective Delivery Systemsby Elsevier ScienceCreativity and Commonsenseby Abiodun QuadriDocuments about PatentBamBrogan v Hyperloop One_First Amended Cross-Complaintby CNBCGlobal Competitiveness Report 2005/2006 Executive Summaryby World Economic ForumProClin® 150, 200 & 300 Preservatives General Safety and Handlingby SAFC-Global