Source: http://mypatentbar.com/feed/
Timestamp: 2017-06-28 07:10:55
Document Index: 537432677

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 102', '§ 2138', '§ 102', '§ 2138', '§ 102', '§ 2138', '§ 102', '§ 2138', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 2132', '§ 2132', '§ 706', '§ 102', '§ 1', '§ 818', '§ 818', '§ 818', '§ 1', '§ 818', '§ 818', '§ 818', '§ 818', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 706', '§ 119', '§ 102', '§ 363', '§ 1', '§ 1810', '§ 1805', '§ 2107', '§ 101', '§ 112', '§ 2107', '§ 101', '§ 112', '§ 2107', '§ 2107', '§ 2107', '§ 102', '§ 715', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 715', '§ 715', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 1', '§ 609', '§ 1', '§ 706', '§ 1', '§ 1206', '§ 1']

http://mypatentbar.com
Tue, 04 May 2010 14:34:51 +0000
Q) Ex Parte Rejection (10.03.50p)
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-ex-parte-rejection-10-03-50p/
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-ex-parte-rejection-10-03-50p/#comments
Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:52:57 +0000
http://mypatentbar.com/?p=1838
Recent test takers report that question #50 from the October 2003 (PM) test is in the patent bar exam database.
50. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following facts are required for 35 USC 102(g) to form the basis for an ex parte rejection:
(1) The subject matter at issue has been actually reduced to practice by another before the applicant’s invention.
(2) There has been no abandonment, suppression or concealment.
(3) A U.S. patent application for the subject matter at issue has been filed by another prior to the filing of the applicant’s application.
(4) A U.S. patent has been granted for the subject matter at issue prior to the filing of the applicant’s application.
(A) Fact (1) only
(B) Fact (2) only
(C) Facts (1) and (2)
(D) Facts (1), (2) and (3)
(E) Facts (1), (2), (3) and (4)
ANSWER: (C) is the most correct, as a 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) rejection requires actual reduction to practice by another, and lack of abandonment, suppression, or concealment. MPEP § 2138 states “35 U.S.C. 102(g) may form the basis for an ex parte rejection if: (1) the subject matter at issue has been actually reduced to practice by another before the applicant’s invention; and (2) there has been no abandonment, suppression or concealment. See, e.g., Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1205, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1991); New Idea Farm Equipment Corp. v. Sperry Corp., 916 F.2d 1561, 1566, 16 USPQ2d 1424, 1428 (Fed. Cir. 1990); E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1434, 7 USPQ2d 1129, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Kimberly-Clark v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1444-46, 223 USPQ 603, 606-08 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” (A) is incorrect, as actual reduction to practice is not sufficient to establish a 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) rejection where the subject matter has been abandoned, suppressed, or concealed. MPEP § 2138. (B) is incorrect, as abandonment, suppression, or concealment is not sufficient to establish a 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) rejection where the subject matter has been reduced to practice in that conception alone is not sufficient. See Kimberly-Clark v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1445, 223 USPQ 603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 1984). MPEP § 2138. (D) is incorrect because no prior patent application is required for a § 102(g) rejection. MPEP § 2138. Similarly, (E) is incorrect, because no prior patent application nor issued patent is required for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g).
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-ex-parte-rejection-10-03-50p/feed/
Q) Public Use (10.03.47p)
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-public-use-10-03-47p/
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-public-use-10-03-47p/#comments
Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:42:57 +0000
http://mypatentbar.com/?p=1834
Recent test takers report that question #47 from the October 2003 (PM) test is in the patent bar exam database.
47. To rely in a rejection under 35 USC 102(a) on an invention that is known or publicly used in accordance with patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, the invention:
(A) must be known or used in NAFTA or WTO member countries.
(B) must be known or used in a NAFTA member country, but only if the filing date of the application is after the effective date of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
(C) must be known or used in this country.
(D) can be known or used in any country.
(E) must be known or used in a WTO member country, but only if the filing date of the application is after the effective date of the implementation of the Uruguay Round (WTO) Agreements Act.
ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a); MPEP § 2132. As set forth in MPEP § 2132, under the heading “II. ‘In This Country,’” subheading “Only Knowledge or Use In The U.S. Can Be Used in a 35 U.S.C. 102(a) Rejection,” states “[t]he knowledge or use relied on in a 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejection must be knowledge or use ‘in this country.’ Prior knowledge or use which is not present in the United States, even if widespread in a foreign country, cannot be the basis of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). In re Ekenstam, 256 F.2d 321, 118 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1958). Note that the changes made to 35 U.S.C.104 by NAFTA (Public Law 103-182) and Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public Law 103-465) do not modify the meaning of ‘in this country’ as used in 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and thus ‘in this country” still means in the United States for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejections.’” See also MPEP § 706.02(c), “[t]he language ‘in this country’ means in the United States only and does not include other WTO or NAFTA member countries.” Since “in this country” means in the United States for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejections, (A), (B), (D) and (E) are incorrect.
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-public-use-10-03-47p/feed/
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-claim-interpretation/
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-claim-interpretation/#comments
Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:34:20 +0000
http://mypatentbar.com/?p=1829
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-claim-interpretation/feed/
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-smith-jones-brown-10-03-42p/
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-smith-jones-brown-10-03-42p/#comments
Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:26:48 +0000
http://mypatentbar.com/?p=1826
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-smith-jones-brown-10-03-42p/feed/
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-restriction-10-03-41p/
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-restriction-10-03-41p/#comments
Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:16:27 +0000
http://mypatentbar.com/?p=1822
ANSWER: (D) is the most correct answer. 37 CFR § 1.111(b); MPEP §§ 818.03(a)-(c). MPEP § 818.03(a) states “[a]s shown by the first sentence of 37 CFR 1.143, the traverse to a requirement must be complete as required by 37 CFR 1.111(b) . . . Under this rule, the applicant is required to specifically point out the reasons on which he or she bases his or her conclusions that a requirement to restrict is in error.” An election must be made even if the requirement is traversed. MPEP § 818.03(b). Answer (A) is incorrect since the traversal does not distinctly point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, and no election is made. 37 CFR § 1.143. MPEP § 818.03(a) states “[a] mere broad allegation that the requirement is in error does not comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.111.” Answer (A) is also incorrect because no election is made. MPEP § 818.03(b) states, “[a]s noted in the second sentence of 37 CFR 1.143, a provisional election must be made even though the requirement is traversed. (B) is incorrect. MPEP § 818.03 since the traversal does not distinctly point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action. (C) is incorrect since no election is made. See MPEP § 818.03(b) (E) is incorrect because (D) is correct.
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-restriction-10-03-41p/feed/
Q) Foreign prior art date (10.03.40p)
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-10-03-40p/
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-10-03-40p/#comments
Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:57:27 +0000
http://mypatentbar.com/?p=1812
Recent test takers report that question #40 from the October 2003 (PM) test is in the patent bar exam database.
40. Applicant files a patent application in Japan on January 5, 2000. Applicant files a PCT international application designating the United States on January 5, 2001, based on the Japanese application. The international application is published in English on July 5, 2001. The international application enters the national stage in the United States on September 5, 2001. The USPTO publishes the application on June 6, 2002. The application issues as a United States patent on December 3, 2002. What is its earliest possible 35 USC 102(e) prior art date for the application published by the United States, in view of the amendment to Title 35 by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002?
(A) January 5, 2000.
(B) January 5, 2001.
(C) July 5, 2001.
(D) June 6, 2002.
(E) December 3, 2002.
ANSWER: (B) is the most correct answer. 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1) provides that a US published application of a national stage of an international application filed on or after November 29, 2000 has a prior art effect as of its international filing date, if the international application designated the United States, and was published in English. Because in the above fact pattern, the international application designated the United States and was published in English, and was filed on or after November 29, 2000, the USPTO published application is entitled to its international filing date of January 5, 2001 for prior art purposes under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1). See Example 4 of MPEP § 706.02(f)(1). (A) is wrong because the Japanese filing date is relevant under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a) only for priority and not prior art purposes. (C) and (E) are wrong because they recite prior art dates that are later than January 5, 2001. (D) is wrong because the prior art date under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1) is earlier than the application publication date, June 6, 2002.
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-10-03-40p/feed/
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-10-03-39p/
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-10-03-39p/#comments
Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:47:41 +0000
http://mypatentbar.com/?p=1802
Recent test takers report that question #39 from the October 2003 (PM) test is in the patent bar exam database.
39. An international application is filed in the United States Receiving Office on September 18, 2002. In accordance with the PCT and USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following will result in the application not being accorded an international filing date of September 18, 2002?
D) The application does not contain a claim.
ANSWER: The correct answer is (D). PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(e); 35 U.S.C. § 363; 37 CFR § 1.431(a); MPEP § 1810. Under PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(e) to be accorded an international filing date an application must have “a part which on the face of it appears to be a claim or claims.” (A) and (C) are incorrect. Under PCT Rule 19.4 if an application is not filed in the prescribed language or is filed by an applicant for which the Office to which the application is submitted is not competent, such application will be forwarded to the International Bureau which will act as receiving Office and accord a filing date as of the date of receipt in the USPTO. (B) is not correct. The Request may be signed by an attorney or agent who is registered to practice before the USPTO. In such a situation the application will be accorded an international filing date of September 18, 2002, and under PCT Article 14 an invitation to correct the defect will be mailed. See MPEP § 1805, paragraph 7; MPEP 1810, under the heading “The ‘International Filing Date,” second paragraph. (E) is also incorrect. Under PCT Rules 14.1(c), 15.4(a), 16.1(f), and 16bis.1 the fees may be paid at a date later than the original receipt date.
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/19/q-10-03-39p/feed/
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/18/q-claims-lack-utility/
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/18/q-claims-lack-utility/#comments
Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:54:11 +0000
http://mypatentbar.com/?p=1797
Recent test takers report that question #37 from the October 2003 (PM) test is in the patent bar exam database.
37. The specification of an application does not disclose the utility of the claimed composition. In fact, the claimed invention is useful for shrinking a specific class of tumors. In a first Office action, the primary examiner has properly determined that the claims lack utility, and has rejected all of the composition claims under the first paragraph of 35 USC 112 as lacking utility. Which of the following responses is in accord with the USPTO rules and the procedures of the MPEP for persuading the examiner that the rejection is improper?
(A) Explain that the rejection is statutorily improper because the first paragraph of section 112 is concerned with enablement and written description issues and therefore does not support a rejection for lack of utility.
(B) Point out that the rejection is based on an erroneous finding by the examiner because the specification, in fact, clearly discloses that the composition in question possesses “useful biological” properties.
(C) Show that the rejection is improper by filing probative evidence that the claimed composition has unambiguously proven to be useful for shrinking a specific class of tumors.
(D) File declarations by persons with ordinary skill in the art stating that they would immediately appreciate that the claimed composition is useful for shrinking a specific class of tumors due to the fact that similar compositions having the same characteristics as applicant’s claimed composition were known to be effective for this purpose.
(E) Argue that the rejection is improper because the examiner has failed to present evidence in support of his position that the claimed composition has no utility.
ANSWER: (D) is most correct answer. As explained at MPEP § 2107.02, II, B, under the heading “No Statement of Utility for the Claimed Invention in the Specification Does Not Per Se Negate Utility,” the fact that a specification does not contain a statement of utility for the claimed invention does not per se negate utility. This is because a claimed invention may have a well-established utility, and an invention has a well-established utility if (i) a person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately appreciate why the invention is useful based on the characteristics of the invention and (ii) the utility is specific, substantial, and credible. In this case, the declarations specify a specific substantial and credible utility and explain why the declarants (i.e., persons of ordinary skill in the art) would immediately appreciate that the applicant’s claimed composition would possess this utility. (A) is incorrect. A lack of utility deficiency under 35 U.S.C. § 101 also creates a lack of utility deficiency under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as fully explained at MPEP § 2107.01, under the heading “IV. Relationship Between 35 U.S.C. 112, First Paragraph, And 35 U.S.C. 101.” (B) is not the most correct answer. 35 U.S.C. § 101 (and the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112) requires that the utility be specific. Therefore, the disclosure of a general utility such as “useful biological” properties does not satisfy this requirement as fully explained at MPEP § 2107.01, under the heading “I. Specific And Substantial Requirements.” Response (C) also would not be persuasive since the rejection is based on the fact that the applicant’s specification fails to identify any specific and substantial utility for the claimed composition or fails to disclose enough information about the invention to make its usefulness immediately apparent to those familiar with the technological field of the invention. This is explained at MPEP § 2107.01. The fact that the claimed composition has unambiguously proven to be useful for curing a form of cancer previously thought to be incurable does not negate these specification deficiencies. That is, notwithstanding this unambiguous proof, the fact remains that the applicant’s specification fails to identify any specific and substantial utility for the composition. Moreover, it is clear that the specification would not make this specific usefulness immediately apparent to those familiar with the technological field of the composition since the cancer was previously thought to be incurable. Finally, response (E) also would not be persuasive. Under current USPTO policy and procedure, the examiner is not required to present evidence in support of a rejection based on lack of utility where, as here, the specification does not identify a specific, substantial and credible utility and does not appear to provide sufficient information such that a well-established utility would be apparent to a person with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2107, under the heading “II. Examination Guidelines For The Utility Requirement.”
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/18/q-claims-lack-utility/feed/
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/18/q-affidavit-1-131-10-03-36p/
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/18/q-affidavit-1-131-10-03-36p/#comments
Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:30:39 +0000
http://mypatentbar.com/?p=1787
Recent test takers report that question #34 from the October 2003 (PM) test is in the patent bar exam database.
36. An application naming X and Y as joint inventors, filed on April 3, 2002, has a single pending claim, and does not claim the benefit of any earlier application. Which, if any, of the following items of prior art that have been relied on in various rejections of the claim may be overcome by a suitable affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131 in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
(A) A U.S. patent to G that issued on March 27, 2001, has an effective U.S. filing date of January 4, 2000, and does not claim the “same patentable invention” (as defined in 37 CFR 1.601(n)) as the rejected claim.
(B) A U.S. patent to P that issued on June 5, 2001, has an effective U.S. filing date of February 1, 2000, and includes a claim that is identical to the rejected claim.
(C) A journal article to H published on December 10, 2001, and characterized in the application as “describ[ing] the prior art.”
(D) A foreign patent issued to X and Y on November 7, 2001, which claims the same subject matter as the rejected claim and is based on an application filed on January 3, 2001.
ANSWER: The correct answer is (E), “None of the above.” (A) is incorrect because the G patent is a 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) statutory bar. See MPEP § 715 under heading “Situations Where 37 CFR 1.131 Affidavits Or Declarations Are Inappropriate,” states “(A) Where the reference publication date is more than 1 year prior to applicant’s or patent owner’s effective filing date. Such a reference is a ‘statutory bar’ under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as referenced in 37 CFR 1.131(a)(2).” (B) is incorrect because 37 CFR § 1.131 expressly provides that prior invention may not be established under the rule “if the rejection is based upon a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication of a pending or patented application to another or others which claims the same patentable invention as defined in 37 CFR 1.601(n).” 37 CFR § 1.131(a)(1). Regarding (C), see MPEP § 715, under heading ” Situations Where 37 CFR 1.131 Affidavits Or Declarations Are Inappropriate,” which states “(G) Where applicant has clearly admitted on the record that subject matter relied on in the reference is prior art. In this case, that subject matter may be used as a basis for rejecting his or her claims and may not be overcome by an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131. In re Hellsund, 474 F.2d 1307, 177 USPQ 170 (CCPA 1973); In re Garfinkel, 437 F.2d 1000, 168 USPQ 659 (CCPA 1971); In re Blout, 333 F.2d 928, 142 USPQ 173 (CCPA 1964); In re Lopresti, 333 F.2d 932, 142 USPQ 177 (CCPA 1964).” Regarding (D), see MPEP § 715, under heading, ” Situations Where 37 CFR 1.131 Affidavits Or Declarations Are Inappropriate,” which states “(C) Where the reference is a foreign patent for the same invention to applicant or patent owner or his or her legal representatives or assigns issued prior to the filing date of the domestic application or patent on an application filed more than 12 months prior to the filing date of the domestic application. See 35 U.S.C. 102(d).”
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/18/q-affidavit-1-131-10-03-36p/feed/
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/18/q-certificate-of-mailing-2/
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/18/q-certificate-of-mailing-2/#comments
Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:16:48 +0000
http://mypatentbar.com/?p=1779
34. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP , which of the following paper is precluded from receiving the benefit of a certificate of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8?
ANSWER: (A) is the most correct answer. See MPEP § 512, which states “The Certificate of Mailing procedure does not apply to papers mailed in a foreign country.” (B) is not correct. See MPEP § 512. Certificate of transmission procedure applies to correspondence transmitted to the Office from a foreign country and an amendment is not prohibited from being transmitted by facsimile and is not precluded from receiving the benefits under 37 CFR § 1.8. (C) is not correct. See MPEP § 609, subsection “Time for Filing.” An IDS will be considered to have been filed on the date of mailing if accompanied by a properly executed certificate of mailing or facsimile transmission under 37 CFR § 1.8. (D) is not correct. See MPEP § 706.07(h) Comparison Chart. An RCE is entitled to the benefit of a certificate of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR § 1.8. (E) is not correct. See MPEP § 1206. An appeal brief is entitled to the benefit of a certificate of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR § 1.8 because it is required to be filed in the Office within a set time period which is 2 months from the date of appeal.
http://mypatentbar.com/2010/04/18/q-certificate-of-mailing-2/feed/