Comments on: Patentable Subject Matter (35 USC 101; MPEP 2100)

By: Sunday

Sunday — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:40:43 +0000

David. Can you please send me a detailed information on the PLI materials. I will like to buy them for my preparation for the patent bar examintion.

By: DanT

DanT — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 19:35:40 +0000

Bob,

What year is your course from? Does it include the new material on the exam?

Send me an email at phins1372@aol.com when you get a chance, I would be interested in buying your materials.

By: David

David — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 01:42:01 +0000

I agree with Bob, PLI is the best way to go. I don’t know much about Omni but PLI was great in explaining the materials and it helped me pass.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 22:31:47 +0000

I still have mine for sale if you are interested.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 22:21:01 +0000

I don’t know much about OmniPrep, but I’ve heard it’s not the best. You can find a used PLI course on eBay for the same or even less. That’s what I used to pass and it was great.

By: DanT

DanT — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:56:10 +0000

Does anyone have experience using the OmniPrep patent bar prep course?

I am a recent law school graduate looking to start preparing for the patent bar, and I was curious if anyone had any recommendations related to professional preparation courses.

OmniPrep is by far the most reasonably priced I have found, but if I am going to invest the time I want to make certain I am putting myself in a position to pass.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

By: JBag

JBag — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:27:31 +0000

One way I remember the differences between consisting and comprising is that “consisting is consistant where comprising can compromise.”

By: patentbar

patentbar — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:11:17 +0000

To satisfy the utility requirement (part 2 of USC 101), you must only state a benefit. When there is a lack of utility, you will usually also have a lack of enablement (USC 112 p1). This means that a rejection based on utility will accompany a rejection based on enablement.

By: patentbar

patentbar — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:01:44 +0000

A proper process claim must include the actual steps. (For example, a process of “doing something” comprising of … and lists a series of steps). “The use of a water replant paint to water-proof patio furniture” – does not recite specific acts for how that process is accomplished, and is not a proper process claim. YOU MUST CITE the steps involved to achieve a result, just citing the result is not sufficient.

By: patentbar

patentbar — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:48:58 +0000

A product-by process is a claim that encompasses the product produced by claim #1. It is the product and not the process that determines patentability. You already have a claim directed toward the process (claim #1). For example, in the same application – you have claim #1 (the process) and claim #2 (the product-by process).