Q) Hydrocyclone (10.03.31a)

by admin on April 9, 2010 · 6 comments

in Exam Questions

Test takers report question #31 from the October 2003 (AM) patent bar exam is in the current question pool.

31. Reexamination has been ordered following receipt of a request for reexamination of U.S. Patent X, filed by the patentee. Patent X contains independent claims 1 through 4, each directed to a hydrocyclone separator apparatus. They are the only claims that were ever presented during prosecution of the application that matured into Patent X. In the first Office action during reexamination, claims 1 through 4 are rejected as being obvious under 35 USC 103 over U.S. Patent Z. The apparatus is used for separating material, including fibers suspended in a liquid suspension, into a light fraction containing the fibers, and a heavy fraction containing rejects. Assume there are no issues under 35 USC 102, 103, or 112, and that any dependent claim is properly dependent. Recommend which of the following claims, if any, would be subject to rejection under 35 USC 305 for improperly enlarging the scope of the original claim in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP.
(A) Claim 5. A hydrocyclone separator apparatus according to claim 4, wherein said blades are configured in the form of generally plane surfaces curved in one plane only.
(B) Claim 5. A hydrocyclone separator apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the outlet duct is in the form of two frustro-conical portions joined at their narrow ends.
(C) Claim 5. A method of separating material including fibers suspended in a liquid suspension comprising the steps of separating the material into a light fraction containing the fibers and a heavy fraction containing rejects, and converting the light fraction into a pulp and paper stock suspension.
(D) Claim 5. A hydrocyclone separator apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the separator chamber is conical in shape having at the narrow end an outlet for the heavy fraction and at its wide end an outlet for the light fraction.
(E) None of the above.

ANSWER: (C). 35 U.S.C. § 305; MPEP §§ 2258 and 1412.03. MPEP § 2258, under the heading “Claims In Proceeding Must Not Enlarge Scope Of The Claims Of The Patent,” states “[w]here new or amended claims are presented . . . the claims of the reexamination proceeding should be examined under 35 U.S.C. 305, to determine whether they enlarge the scope of the original claims. 35 U.S.C. 305 states that ‘no proposed amended or new claim enlarging the scope of the claims of the patent will be permitted in a reexamination proceeding…’.” Under the further subheading “Criteria for Enlargement of the Scope of the Claims,” MPEP § 2258 states “A claim presented in a reexamination proceeding ‘enlarges the scope’ of the claims of the patent being reexamined where the claim is broader than each and every claim of the patent. See MPEP § 1412.03 for guidance as to when the presented claim is considered to be a broadening claim as compared with the claims of the patent, i.e., what is broadening and what is not. If a claim is considered to be a broadening claim for purposes of reissue, it is likewise considered to be a broadening claim in reexamination.” MPEP § 1412.03, under the heading “New Category of Invention Added In Reissue – Broadening,” states “[t]he addition of process claims as a new category of invention to be claimed in the patent (i.e., where there were no method claims present in the original patent) is generally considered as being a broadening of the invention. See Ex parte Wikdahl, 10 USPQ2d 1546, 1549 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).” MPEP 2258, under the further subheading “Rejection of Claims Where There Is Enlargement,” states “[a]ny claim in a reexamination proceeding which enlarges the scope of the claims of the patent should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 305.” Since no claims drawn to a method were ever presented during prosecution of Patent X (claims 1 through 4 “are the only claims that were ever presented during prosecution of the application that matured into Patent X”), the claim recited in (C) is not directed to “the invention as claimed.” (A), (B), and (D) are all incorrect because each of their claims are directed to a hydrocyclone separator apparatus, i.e., “the invention as claimed,” and they do not enlarge the scope of the claims in Patent X. (E) is an incorrect answer because (C) is the correct answer.

{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }

1 studierNo Gravatar December 2, 2010 at 5:26 pm

They just love to word questions terribly, don’t they…

“rejected as being obvious under 35 USC 103 over U.S. Patent Z. The apparatus is used for”

They are referring to the apparatus of the invention at issue. But any writer who passed the 2nd grade wouldn’t begin speaking about an apparatus mentioned several sentences back after ending the prior sentence talking about a different invention…

Reply

2 PatfieldNo Gravatar July 1, 2011 at 6:43 pm

Bravo USPTO Question Writer! You Sir or Madam deserve a beer for the most convoluted question ever. We have a winner folks, the search is over.

Reply

3 KforsytheNo Gravatar October 18, 2011 at 10:08 pm

My husband would say the writer deserves TWO beers! Even he got it wrong….his response was “why do all the sentences begin with the same word and contain all the same words??? Ex. reexamination, conical and suspension!!

Reply

4 MFBNo Gravatar February 2, 2012 at 2:47 pm

What is the significance of the whole “Patent Z” set of facts? It seems like you could remove it entirely from the question and it would make (even more) sense:

“Reexamination has been ordered following receipt of a request for reexamination of U.S. Patent X, filed by the patentee. The apparatus is used for separating material, including fibers suspended in a liquid suspension, into a light fraction containing the fibers, and a heavy fraction containing rejects. Assume there are no issues under 35 USC 102, 103, or 112, and that any dependent claim is properly dependent. Recommend which of the following claims, if any, would be subject to rejection under 35 USC 305 for improperly enlarging the scope of the original claim in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?”

Reply

5 SolNo Gravatar April 3, 2012 at 12:34 am

The significance is to confuse everyone normal

Reply

6 GDBNo Gravatar April 13, 2012 at 5:25 pm

Yes, the reference to Z confused me and I wasted a lot of time thinking about it.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: