Comments on: Q) Smith (10.03.9a) http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/ Patent Bar Review and Study Guide Tue, 07 Feb 2012 03:15:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: maggie http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-20194 maggie Wed, 02 Nov 2011 15:45:32 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-20194 It will only be prior art against the child If there is no (parent-child relationship est during co-pendency). For example of this see the Spanish phone Q.. It will only be prior art against the child If there is no (parent-child relationship est during co-pendency). For example of this see the Spanish phone Q..

]]> By: KF http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-20180 KF Wed, 02 Nov 2011 14:31:24 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-20180 RIght, and the parent application can now be used as prior art for the CIP app, right? RIght, and the parent application can now be used as prior art for the CIP app, right?

]]> By: maggie http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-19944 maggie Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:34:50 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-19944 Yes, and any "new matter" claims in a CIP do not get benefit of earlier priority date. Yes, and any “new matter” claims in a CIP do not get benefit of earlier priority date.

]]> By: maggie http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-19942 maggie Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:32:27 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-19942 No, retaking in Nov :) No, retaking in Nov :)

]]> By: KF http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-19692 KF Tue, 01 Nov 2011 02:01:09 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-19692 So, to clarify Answer C is wrong, because there is no requirement that a CIP be filed within 1 year of the parent application. A CIP can be filed whenever, as long as the parent application is still in prosecution, hence the two applications would be copending?? So, to clarify Answer C is wrong, because there is no requirement that a CIP be filed within 1 year of the parent application. A CIP can be filed whenever, as long as the parent application is still in prosecution, hence the two applications would be copending??

]]> By: KF http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-19691 KF Tue, 01 Nov 2011 01:59:28 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-19691 Thanks Maggie!! I keep wondering if you have passed yet! 4 more days for me! Thanks Maggie!! I keep wondering if you have passed yet! 4 more days for me!

]]> By: maggie http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-17951 maggie Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:13:53 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-17951 There is no 1 year time line to any continuation app (continuation apps only require that they are co-pending together to claim benefit) . But, of course, there is a 1 year/12 month deadline for a claim the benefit of a provisional app. The Q though, is pointed to the fact that the CIP's "new matter" claims do not get the benefit of the parent's date because they are not covered by the parent's disclosure. There is no 1 year time line to any continuation app (continuation apps only require that they are co-pending together to claim benefit) . But, of course, there is a 1 year/12 month deadline for a claim the benefit of a provisional app.

The Q though, is pointed to the fact that the CIP’s “new matter” claims do not get the benefit of the parent’s date because they are not covered by the parent’s disclosure.

]]> By: Kforsythe http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-17949 Kforsythe Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:41:56 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-17949 I totally agree. To clarify becuase this was a CIP there are no timeline deadlines..meaning the 1 year time line the answers raise is not applicable here or ever? I totally agree. To clarify becuase this was a CIP there are no timeline deadlines..meaning the 1 year time line the answers raise is not applicable here or ever?

]]> By: Lost http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-8803 Lost Tue, 22 Mar 2011 04:20:36 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-8803 The CIP is an inherent attribute of this question.. ;) The CIP is an inherent attribute of this question.. ;)

]]> By: Matt http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-4046 Matt Sun, 26 Sep 2010 03:30:16 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/15/q76-smith-10039a/#comment-4046 It'd be nice if the fact pattern explicitly stated that the second app was a CIP. Obviously that is what I assumed, but they really should be using proper terminology. Maybe they just like to stress us out? It’d be nice if the fact pattern explicitly stated that the second app was a CIP. Obviously that is what I assumed, but they really should be using proper terminology. Maybe they just like to stress us out?

]]>