<?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: Q) Public Inspection (10.02.21a)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mypatentbar.com/2009/04/28/q-public-inspection-100221a/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2009/04/28/q-public-inspection-100221a/</link>
	<description>Patent Bar Review and Study Guide</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 00:33:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: RBL 5/12/12</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2009/04/28/q-public-inspection-100221a/#comment-40755</link>
		<dc:creator>RBL 5/12/12</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 02:33:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/?p=879#comment-40755</guid>
		<description>Exactly.  &quot;(B) Assignment document&quot;, in singular form (cf., documents) can only refer to one document.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Exactly.  &#8220;(B) Assignment document&#8221;, in singular form (cf., documents) can only refer to one document.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Number_27</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2009/04/28/q-public-inspection-100221a/#comment-5336</link>
		<dc:creator>Number_27</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:15:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/?p=879#comment-5336</guid>
		<description>Answer D was my choice but I struggled with it because it is unclear whether both the pending patent application and abandoned patent application had not been published, or just the latter.

Badly worded answer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Answer D was my choice but I struggled with it because it is unclear whether both the pending patent application and abandoned patent application had not been published, or just the latter.</p>
<p>Badly worded answer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2009/04/28/q-public-inspection-100221a/#comment-1546</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:32:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/?p=879#comment-1546</guid>
		<description>Here’s my take on this:
Answer (B) talks about a single assignment document.

As “S” comments about MPEP 301.01, above “..The Office will not open only certain parts of an assignment document to public inspection. If such a document contains two or more items, any one of which, if alone, would be open to such inspection, then the entire document will be open.”

The assignment document in answer (B) relates to an issued patent, therefore, the assignment document IS OPEN to public inspection in it’s entirety.

So (B) is an incorrect answer choice since the question is looking for a document that is NOT open to public inspection.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here’s my take on this:<br />
Answer (B) talks about a single assignment document.</p>
<p>As “S” comments about MPEP 301.01, above “..The Office will not open only certain parts of an assignment document to public inspection. If such a document contains two or more items, any one of which, if alone, would be open to such inspection, then the entire document will be open.”</p>
<p>The assignment document in answer (B) relates to an issued patent, therefore, the assignment document IS OPEN to public inspection in it’s entirety.</p>
<p>So (B) is an incorrect answer choice since the question is looking for a document that is NOT open to public inspection.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: patentbar</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2009/04/28/q-public-inspection-100221a/#comment-1568</link>
		<dc:creator>patentbar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:21:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/?p=879#comment-1568</guid>
		<description>When I went for my exam review at the PTO I found that I had missed several of these types of questions. (You can read about exam reviews at usptoExam.com under the resources tab) Some example question types are:

...which is proper?

...which is a proper rejection?

...which is not a proper rejection?

The double &amp; triple negatives can get very confusing but practicing the  old questions will solve this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I went for my exam review at the PTO I found that I had missed several of these types of questions. (You can read about exam reviews at usptoExam.com under the resources tab) Some example question types are:</p>
<p>&#8230;which is proper?</p>
<p>&#8230;which is a proper rejection?</p>
<p>&#8230;which is not a proper rejection?</p>
<p>The double &amp; triple negatives can get very confusing but practicing the  old questions will solve this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: S</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2009/04/28/q-public-inspection-100221a/#comment-1567</link>
		<dc:creator>S</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:03:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/?p=879#comment-1567</guid>
		<description>You are right, MPB!!!

I missed the &quot;not&quot; part of the question.

Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are right, MPB!!!</p>
<p>I missed the &#8220;not&#8221; part of the question.</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mypatentbar</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2009/04/28/q-public-inspection-100221a/#comment-1545</link>
		<dc:creator>mypatentbar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:45:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/?p=879#comment-1545</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s my take on this:
Answer (B) talks about a single assignment document.

As &quot;S&quot; comments about MPEP 301.01, above &quot;..The Office will not open only certain parts of an assignment document to public inspection. If such a document contains two or more items, any one of which, if alone, would be open to such inspection, then the entire document will be open.&quot;

The assignment document in answer (B) relates to an issued patent, therefore, the assignment document IS OPEN to public inspection in it&#039;s entirety.

So (B) is an incorrect answer choice since the question is looking for a document that is NOT open to public inspection.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s my take on this:<br />
Answer (B) talks about a single assignment document.</p>
<p>As &#8220;S&#8221; comments about MPEP 301.01, above &#8220;..The Office will not open only certain parts of an assignment document to public inspection. If such a document contains two or more items, any one of which, if alone, would be open to such inspection, then the entire document will be open.&#8221;</p>
<p>The assignment document in answer (B) relates to an issued patent, therefore, the assignment document IS OPEN to public inspection in it&#8217;s entirety.</p>
<p>So (B) is an incorrect answer choice since the question is looking for a document that is NOT open to public inspection.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: S</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2009/04/28/q-public-inspection-100221a/#comment-1544</link>
		<dc:creator>S</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:58:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/?p=879#comment-1544</guid>
		<description>I have to agree with the above comments. Hope someone will explain:

301.01 explicitly states that

Records related to assignments of patents, and patent applications that have been published as Patent application publications are available on the USPTO Internet website.
The Office will not open only certain parts of an assignment document to public inspection. If such a document contains two or more items, any one of which, if alone, would be open to such inspection, then the entire document will be open.

For choice B, if patent issued and the patent application not published under 35 USC 122(b) are related, then assignment is open to public.
But if they are not related, then the second part of the choice will not be open to public, while the issued patent will be open.

Can someone pl explain this?
Thank you,</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to agree with the above comments. Hope someone will explain:</p>
<p>301.01 explicitly states that</p>
<p>Records related to assignments of patents, and patent applications that have been published as Patent application publications are available on the USPTO Internet website.<br />
The Office will not open only certain parts of an assignment document to public inspection. If such a document contains two or more items, any one of which, if alone, would be open to such inspection, then the entire document will be open.</p>
<p>For choice B, if patent issued and the patent application not published under 35 USC 122(b) are related, then assignment is open to public.<br />
But if they are not related, then the second part of the choice will not be open to public, while the issued patent will be open.</p>
<p>Can someone pl explain this?<br />
Thank you,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: squirrel</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2009/04/28/q-public-inspection-100221a/#comment-1513</link>
		<dc:creator>squirrel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:56:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/?p=879#comment-1513</guid>
		<description>I agree with you. I am confused by the answer B. Who can explain this? Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you. I am confused by the answer B. Who can explain this? Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: triedandtested</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2009/04/28/q-public-inspection-100221a/#comment-1512</link>
		<dc:creator>triedandtested</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:59:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/?p=879#comment-1512</guid>
		<description>I meant the above for option (B)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I meant the above for option (B)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: triedandtested</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2009/04/28/q-public-inspection-100221a/#comment-1511</link>
		<dc:creator>triedandtested</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:58:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/?p=879#comment-1511</guid>
		<description>This is ambiguous. Are the issued patent and patent application not published both related to each other, or refer to each other? If yes, then the assignment record is available. But the question does not say so.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is ambiguous. Are the issued patent and patent application not published both related to each other, or refer to each other? If yes, then the assignment record is available. But the question does not say so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

