Comments on: Q) Broom Handle (MPEP 2100) http://mypatentbar.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/ Patent Bar Review and Study Guide Sat, 19 May 2012 22:04:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Keener http://mypatentbar.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-42600 Keener Fri, 18 May 2012 20:16:43 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-42600 Can anyone who's had this question spell out in more detail? There are bits and pieces, but without seeing the question at the exam, I don't think I could recreate it based on the posts. Thanks Can anyone who’s had this question spell out in more detail? There are bits and pieces, but without seeing the question at the exam, I don’t think I could recreate it based on the posts.
Thanks

]]> By: GDB http://mypatentbar.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-38887 GDB Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:02:31 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-38887 Got this 19/04/12 Got this 19/04/12

]]> By: Sol http://mypatentbar.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-37649 Sol Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:20:12 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-37649 Just a note, this is wrong "if the practitioner agrees that claims are multiplicative". There is no requirement of admission, i.e, the practioner is required to agree. The practionner can agree/disagree, does not matter, totally unrelevant. The point is to select. Call--Select--Examine the selected claims---Next OA, make the mutiplicity rejection and any other rejection/objections as necessary--usual proceduare or Call--NO Select---Next OA, make the mutiplicity rejection and any other rejection/objections as necessary--Select--Examine the selected claims---Next OA, still maintain the mutiplicity rejection and any other rejection/objections as necessary--usual procedure Just a note, this is wrong “if the practitioner agrees that claims are multiplicative”. There is no requirement of admission, i.e, the practioner is required to agree. The practionner can agree/disagree, does not matter, totally unrelevant. The point is to select.

Call–Select–Examine the selected claims—Next OA, make the mutiplicity rejection and any other rejection/objections as necessary–usual proceduare

or

Call–NO Select—Next OA, make the mutiplicity rejection and any other rejection/objections as necessary–Select–Examine the selected claims—Next OA, still maintain the mutiplicity rejection and any other rejection/objections as necessary–usual procedure

]]> By: KillianRed http://mypatentbar.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-35057 KillianRed Sat, 17 Mar 2012 21:48:43 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-35057 Got this on 3/17/12 Got this on 3/17/12

]]> By: Jamecam http://mypatentbar.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-19412 Jamecam Mon, 31 Oct 2011 02:44:24 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-19412 I got this question on 10/29/2011. The correct answer was that the examiner should call the practitioner by phone and ask him to select a few claims for prosecution. Then, in the first office action, the examiner should make the multiplicity rejection for the unelected claims if the practitioner agrees that claims are multiplicative. I got this question on 10/29/2011.

The correct answer was that the examiner should call the practitioner by phone and ask him to select a few claims for prosecution. Then, in the first office action, the examiner should make the multiplicity rejection for the unelected claims if the practitioner agrees that claims are multiplicative.

]]> By: Remanded http://mypatentbar.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-16034 Remanded Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:54:59 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-16034 Got this one today, 18 September 2011. Got this one today, 18 September 2011.

]]> By: Nick http://mypatentbar.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-15454 Nick Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:00:32 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-15454 Got this on 9/7/11. Got this on 9/7/11.

]]> By: ntl http://mypatentbar.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-15424 ntl Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:46:08 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-15424 Got this one on 09/06/11. Got this one on 09/06/11.

]]> By: TJL http://mypatentbar.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-14613 TJL Fri, 19 Aug 2011 03:42:48 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-14613 Got this 8/18. Got this 8/18.

]]> By: Daniel http://mypatentbar.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-13986 Daniel Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:11:28 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/question-2081-broom-handle/#comment-13986 Saw this one exactly on 7/29/2011 Saw this one exactly on 7/29/2011

]]>