Question #8 from the April 2003 (AM) patent bar exam is reported by exam takers as a question in the current exam database.
8. Following a restriction requirement and election, a registered practitioner received a first Office action dated Friday, December 1, 2000. The primary examiner indicated that claims 1 to 10 were rejected and claims 11 to 20 were withdrawn from consideration. The first Office action set a 3 month shortened statutory period for reply. On February 28, 2001, the practitioner properly filed an express abandonment in the application and at the same time filed a request for continuing application. In a non-final Office action dated May 1, 2001 in the continuing application, the examiner indicated in that claims 1 to 20, all of the pending claims, are rejected. The practitioner filed a notice of appeal on Monday, July 2, 2001. In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following most accurately describes the propriety of the practitioner’s reply to the May 1st Office action?
(A) The notice of appeal is not a proper response because the claims of the continuing application have not been finally rejected.
(B) The notice of appeal is not a proper reply because all of the claims in the continuing application have not been twice rejected.
(C) The filing of a notice of appeal is not a proper reply because not all the claims in the continuing application have been twice rejected.
(D) A notice of appeal is never a proper response to a non-final rejection.
(E) The reply is proper.
ANSWER: (E) is the most correct answer. MPEP § 1205, under the heading “Appeal By Patent Applicant,” states that “[a] notice of appeal may be filed after any of the claims has been twice rejected, regardless of whether the claim(s) has/have been finally rejected. The limitation of ‘twice or finally…rejected’ does not have to be related to a particular application. For example, if any claim was rejected in a parent application, and the claim is again rejected in a continuing application, then applicant will be entitled to file an appeal in the continuingapplication, even if the claim was rejected only once in the continuing application.” (A), (B), (C), and (D) are not the most correct answer because a notice of appeal can be filed in a continuing application where at least one of the rejected claims was twice rejected, and one of the rejections may occur in the parent application.
The model answer seems to imply that “withdrawn from consideration” is equivalent to rejection, regarding claims 11-20. Can anyone shed some light on this?
Nope that does not imply that the withdrawn claims are under appeal. Only the original twice rejected 1-10 claims are under appeal (though not explicitly stated)
I got this one on 3/17/12
If any of the claims are twice rejected (in this example claims 1-10 are twice rejected) then an appeal would be proper.