Questions #27 from the April 2000 (AM) patent bar exam is in the Prometric database.
27. On February 8, 1999, you filed a patent application that you prepared for Mr. Bond. The application contains only one claim. The application disclosed a composition having 20%A, 20%B, and either 60%C or 60%D. Claim 1 is as follows:
Claim 1. A composition useful for bonding semiconductor materials to metals, comprising 20%A, 20%B, and 60%C.”
The examiner found a patent to Gold, dated March 8, 1998, which only disclosed and claimed a composition, having 20%A, 20%B, and 60%C, and also taught that the composition would only be useful for insulating metals from corrosion. The examiner rejected Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Gold, in an Office action dated August 9, 1999. Which of the following is most likely to overcome the rejection, and comports with proper PTO rules and procedure?
(A) Filing a reply, on March 9, 2000, with a petition for a three-month extension and the fee for a three-month extension, traversing the rejection on the ground that Gold does not disclose using the composition for bonding semiconductor materials to metals, and therefore does not disclose all the elements of Claim 1.
(B) Filing a reply, on September 9, 1999, traversing the rejection on the ground that Gold does not disclose using the composition for bonding semi-conductor materials to metals, and therefore does not disclose all the elements of Claim 1.
(C) Filing a reply on October 9, 1999, amending Claim 1 to state as follows: “Claim 1. A composition comprising: 20%A, 20%B, and 60%D.” In the reply, pointing out why the amendment gives the claim patentable novelty.
(D) Filing a reply on October 9, 1999, traversing the rejection on the grounds that the patent to Gold teaches away from using the invention in the manner taught in Bond’s application.
(E) Filing (i) a 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 affidavit objectively demonstrating the commercial success of the invention as claimed, and (ii) a reply containing an argument why the claimed invention is patentable, but no amendment to Claim 1.
ANSWER: (C). MPEP § 2111.02. (A), (B), and (D) are incorrect since the “use” recited in the preamble in Claim 1 does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the disclosure in the Gold patent. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576 (CCPA 1967). (A) is further incorrect since the reply would not be filed within the statutory period. (D) is further incorrect since the rejection is not under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and any “teaching away” in the Gold patent is not applicable to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). (E) is incorrect since evidence of commercial success, relevant to secondary considerations concerning rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is not relevant to overcoming rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). (C) is correct since the amendment is timely filed, supported by the disclosure, and renders the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) inapplicable.
Got this one today. Had seen the answer here and went with C.
What “teach away” means? Thanks.
If the reference said “you should really make it bigger” and you made your invention smaller, then the reference teaches away from your invention.
also, teaching away is irrelevant for 102 rejections.
Am I stupid or is the patent to Gold not even prior art under 102(a)? Published March, 8 1998 and applicant filed Feb. 8 1999 – less than a year later. I guess C is still a good answer, though, so you anticipate and traverse the same rejection under 102(e). Sound correct?
Sorry. Confused (a) and (b).