Q) Verification Statement (10.03.32p)

by admin on April 18, 2010 · 7 comments

in Exam Questions

Recent test takers report that question #32 from the October 2003 (PM) test is in the patent bar exam database.

32. Determine which of the following documents, if any, must also contain a separate verification statement in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP.
(A) A request to correct inventorship in a pending application.
(B) A petition to make an application special.
(C) A claim for foreign priority.
(D) A substitute specification.
(E) None of the above.

ANSWER: (E) is the most correct answer. MPEP § 410 states that the certification requirement set forth in 37 CFR § 10.18(b) “has permitted the USPTO to eliminate the separate verification requirement previously contained in 37 CFR …1.48 [correction of inventorship in a patent application], …1.55 [claim for foreign priority], …1.102 [petition to make an application special], [and] … 1.125 [substitute specification].”

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

1 rhmNo Gravatar August 21, 2010 at 4:12 pm

This question on the patent bar exam as of today. 8-21-10.


2 MattNo Gravatar September 23, 2010 at 6:21 pm

Nice. Hopefully I’ll get a bunch of nice, easy repeats like this one.


3 ELSNo Gravatar March 7, 2011 at 12:14 pm

Saw this one yesterday.


4 BeckerNo Gravatar May 17, 2011 at 3:28 pm

I got this question 5/16/2011.


5 steveNo Gravatar August 10, 2012 at 11:06 pm

So what documents would need a separate verification statement?


6 mimiNo Gravatar September 21, 2012 at 6:03 am

Steve, I looked up the related part in MPEP 410.
I hope this is helpful.
In conclusion, the each verification statement is required to be contained in oath or declaration.

“The first certification has permitted the USPTO to eliminate the separate verification requirement previously contained in 37 CFR 1.6, 1.8, 1.10, 1.27, 1.28, 1.47, 1.48, 1.52, 1.55, 1.69, 1.102, 1.125, 1.137, 1.377, 1.378, 1.740, 1.804, 1.805, 3.26, and 5.4 for statements of facts by persons who are not registered to practice before the USPTO. As statements submitted to the USPTO by any person are now, by operation of 37 CFR 10.18(b)(1), verified statements, a separate verification requirement is no longer necessary. The USPTO, however, has retained the verification requirement for a statement to be submitted under oath or declaration (37 CFR 1.68) in a number of sections (e.g., 37 CFR 1.63, 1.130, 1.131, 1.132, 1.495(f), and 5.25). “


7 RyanNo Gravatar March 13, 2013 at 5:02 pm

The reference to 37 CFR 10.18 is rather confusing since, as of MPEP E8R8, this section is gone and now “reserved.”

And section 410 in MPEP E8R9 has not been updated since R5, thus still contains the reference to 10.18.

What gives? Is this just poor MPEP editing on the part of the USPTO? Did this question really appear in a test taken on 5/16/11, nearly a year after 37 CFR 10.18 was scrubbed from the MPEP?


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: