Recent test takers report question #41 from the October 2003 (pm) exam is in the Patent Bar database of tested questions.
41. Evidence that a claim may not comply with the second paragraph of 35 USC 112 occurs in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedure set forth in the MPEP where:
(A) Remarks filed by applicant in a reply or brief regarding the scope of the invention differ and do not correspond in scope with the claim.
(B) There is a lack of agreement between the language in the claims and the language set forth in the specification.
(C) The scope of the claimed subject matter is narrowed during pendency of the application by deleting the originally much broader claims, and presenting claims to only the preferred embodiment within the originally much broader claims.
(D) Claims in a continuation application are directed to originally disclosed subject matter (in the parent and continuation applications) which applicants did not regard as part of their invention when the parent application was filed.
(E) All of the above.
ANSWER: (A) is the most correct answer. In accordance with MPEP § 2172, under the heading “II. Evidence To The Contrary,” states that evidence that shows a claim does not correspond in scope with that which applicant regards as applicant’s invention may be found, for example, in contentions or admissions contained in briefs or remarks filed by applicant. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969). (B) is incorrect. MPEP § 2172, under the heading “II. Evidence To The Contrary,” states, “As noted in In re Ehrreich, 590 F.2d 902, 200 USPQ 504 (CCPA 1979) agreement, or lack thereof, between the claims and the specification is properly considered only with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; it is irrelevant to compliance with the second paragraph of that section.” (C) is incorrect. MPEP § 2172, under the heading “III. Shift In Claims Permitted,” indicates that the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 does not prohibit applicants from changing what they regard as their invention during the pendency of the application. In re Saunders, 444 F.2d 599, 170 USPQ 213 (CCPA 1971) (Applicant was permitted to claim and submit comparative evidence with respect to claimed subject matter which originally was only the preferred embodiment within much broader claims (directed to a method). (D) is incorrect. MPEP § 2172, under the heading “III. Shift In Claims Permitted,” indicates that the fact that claims in a continuation application were directed to originally disclosed subject matter which applicants had not regarded as part of their invention when the parent application was filed was held not to prevent the continuation application from receiving benefits of the filing date of the parent application under 35 U.S.C. § 120. In re Brower, 433 F.2d 813, 167 USPQ 684 (CCPA 1970). (E) is incorrect because (B), (C), and (D) are incorrect.
This question hurts my brain. Can anyone help explain why A is correct over B? or E for that matter. Thanks.
112 2nd paragph has two requirements, first claim your invention and second tell people the boundaries of your claimed invention.
(1)the claims must set forth the subject matter that applicants regard as their invention; and
(2)the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant.
(A) failed the first requirment, because the applicant says his invention is X+Y in a repply/brief/affideavit but says his invention is Y+Z in his claims. The scopes are different in claims and reply/brief/affidavit, so what is the applicant’s invention?
A rejection based on the failure to satisfy 1st requirement is appropriate only where applicant has stated, somewhere other than in the application as filed, that the invention is something different from what is defined by the claims.
(B) is an issue but not a 112 2nd paragraph issue. It is an issue under 112 1st paragraph, written description, enablement or best mode. “agreement, or lack thereof, between the claims and the specification is properly considered only with respecto 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; it is irrelevant to compliance with the second paragraph of that section.”
Sol’s explanations are correct. The reference for his explanation in B is MPEP 2172 II. Evidence to the contrary.
Got this 3/30/13.