<?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: Correction of Patents (MPEP 1400)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/08/correction-of-patents-mpep-1400/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/08/correction-of-patents-mpep-1400/</link>
	<description>Patent Bar Review and Study Guide</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:43:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: S</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/08/correction-of-patents-mpep-1400/#comment-1216</link>
		<dc:creator>S</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:30:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/08/correction-of-patents-mpep-1400/#comment-1216</guid>
		<description>I looked through the entire 1412.03 and  35 USC 251, couldn&#039;t find about chaining and 18 months. I thought I missed it, can somebody clarify this, pl?

Thanks in advance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I looked through the entire 1412.03 and  35 USC 251, couldn&#8217;t find about chaining and 18 months. I thought I missed it, can somebody clarify this, pl?</p>
<p>Thanks in advance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CatDaVincy</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/08/correction-of-patents-mpep-1400/#comment-1215</link>
		<dc:creator>CatDaVincy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:38:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/08/correction-of-patents-mpep-1400/#comment-1215</guid>
		<description>agree
couldn&#039;t find anything in 35 U.S.C. 251 either
not only about 18 months but about &quot;chaining&quot; in general :((</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>agree<br />
couldn&#8217;t find anything in 35 U.S.C. 251 either<br />
not only about 18 months but about &#8220;chaining&#8221; in general <img src='http://mypatentbar.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' /> (</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aug25/2008</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/08/correction-of-patents-mpep-1400/#comment-1214</link>
		<dc:creator>Aug25/2008</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2008 22:25:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/08/correction-of-patents-mpep-1400/#comment-1214</guid>
		<description>Its confusing the way 1412.03 is summarized above:

1412.03: Steps for rejecting recapture claims:

1. 35 U.S.C. 251: Remember: There is a 2 year limit from the original issue on the time to make a reissue app if it is going to broaden claims. However, reissue apps can be chained together as long as they are all broadening so: Original app + 18 month for 1st broadening reissue app + 18 months for 2nd broadening reissue app is allowable even though the final reissue app is &gt; 2 years after the original issuance date.

The MPEP states it as 2 years, not 18 months... Am I missing anything?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Its confusing the way 1412.03 is summarized above:</p>
<p>1412.03: Steps for rejecting recapture claims:</p>
<p>1. 35 U.S.C. 251: Remember: There is a 2 year limit from the original issue on the time to make a reissue app if it is going to broaden claims. However, reissue apps can be chained together as long as they are all broadening so: Original app + 18 month for 1st broadening reissue app + 18 months for 2nd broadening reissue app is allowable even though the final reissue app is &gt; 2 years after the original issuance date.</p>
<p>The MPEP states it as 2 years, not 18 months&#8230; Am I missing anything?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aug25/2008</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/08/correction-of-patents-mpep-1400/#comment-1213</link>
		<dc:creator>Aug25/2008</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:43:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2007/12/08/correction-of-patents-mpep-1400/#comment-1213</guid>
		<description>Regarding 1453: Amending Reissue Apps: (see 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g); 37 CFR 1.121(i)):

When omitting, [put omitted material in brackets]; Why no strikethrough? Probably because the strikethroughs are preserved from the original patent? or some other reason?

Maybe its because for reissue the marked-up version is published and strikethrough is a little more difficult to read? At least that makes sense to me and will help me remember...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding 1453: Amending Reissue Apps: (see 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g); 37 CFR 1.121(i)):</p>
<p>When omitting, [put omitted material in brackets]; Why no strikethrough? Probably because the strikethroughs are preserved from the original patent? or some other reason?</p>
<p>Maybe its because for reissue the marked-up version is published and strikethrough is a little more difficult to read? At least that makes sense to me and will help me remember&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
