<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Appeal (MPEP 1200)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/</link>
	<description>Patent Bar Review and Study Guide</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 22:04:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Keener</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-42558</link>
		<dc:creator>Keener</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 15:27:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-42558</guid>
		<description>I think this has to deal with responding to a FINAL OA before under 2 months.  The last day to file the appeal brief without extension would be the day the Advisory Action if filed.  There is a Question in the April 2003 test that covers this.  I think it is is the PM test.  The answer was May 31.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think this has to deal with responding to a FINAL OA before under 2 months.  The last day to file the appeal brief without extension would be the day the Advisory Action if filed.  There is a Question in the April 2003 test that covers this.  I think it is is the PM test.  The answer was May 31.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Keener</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-42554</link>
		<dc:creator>Keener</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 15:20:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-42554</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s why I keep getting that question wrong!  Thanks Miranda</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s why I keep getting that question wrong!  Thanks Miranda</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Miranda</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-33040</link>
		<dc:creator>Miranda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:18:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-33040</guid>
		<description>Kerstin, when are you planning on taking the exam?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kerstin, when are you planning on taking the exam?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kerstin</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-33034</link>
		<dc:creator>Kerstin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:41:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-33034</guid>
		<description>ahh, Technology Centers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ahh, Technology Centers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kerstin</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-33033</link>
		<dc:creator>Kerstin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:40:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-33033</guid>
		<description>What does TC mean under the section about 1210?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What does TC mean under the section about 1210?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Miranda</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-31023</link>
		<dc:creator>Miranda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 03:06:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-31023</guid>
		<description>new MPEP  v8 no longer makes this requirement , only suggests it...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>new MPEP  v8 no longer makes this requirement , only suggests it&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KF</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-18381</link>
		<dc:creator>KF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:32:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-18381</guid>
		<description>Can someone reconcile the timeline statements in the beginning of Appeal. It says file notice withint 3 months with an optional 3 month extension, and then under the Timing section it says an optional 5 month extension? Is that only an appeal filed for an app that orinated as a PCT?? Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can someone reconcile the timeline statements in the beginning of Appeal. It says file notice withint 3 months with an optional 3 month extension, and then under the Timing section it says an optional 5 month extension? Is that only an appeal filed for an app that orinated as a PCT?? Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-3569</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2010 01:16:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-3569</guid>
		<description>1207.02 I can&#039;t copy and paste it correctly using Adobe Reader 5.0, but it specifically says the examiner should respond to the appellants appeal with a written statement within 2 months of receipt of the appeal brief.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1207.02 I can&#8217;t copy and paste it correctly using Adobe Reader 5.0, but it specifically says the examiner should respond to the appellants appeal with a written statement within 2 months of receipt of the appeal brief.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Randy</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-3568</link>
		<dc:creator>Randy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Aug 2010 22:38:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-3568</guid>
		<description>&quot;Examiner must answer within 2 months from receipt of appeal brief&quot;

Where in the MPEP does it says this?  I do not have a 2-month requirement for the Examiner&#039;s answer and I was not able to find it in MPEP 1207.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Examiner must answer within 2 months from receipt of appeal brief&#8221;</p>
<p>Where in the MPEP does it says this?  I do not have a 2-month requirement for the Examiner&#8217;s answer and I was not able to find it in MPEP 1207.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-3545</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Aug 2010 05:59:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/01/appeal-mpep-1200/#comment-3545</guid>
		<description>I think that is based on revision 3 of the MPEP. Regardless, I am going to pretend like you still have until the end of the time allowed to reply. I don&#039;t trust the USPTO to update the answers to be honest. I&#039;ve read several posts on this site about how the questions that have multiple answers, like A &amp; D for example, aren&#039;t being given credit for currently.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that is based on revision 3 of the MPEP. Regardless, I am going to pretend like you still have until the end of the time allowed to reply. I don&#8217;t trust the USPTO to update the answers to be honest. I&#8217;ve read several posts on this site about how the questions that have multiple answers, like A &amp; D for example, aren&#8217;t being given credit for currently.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

