Old Exams

132 comments

The questions and answers on this page are the original documents and have not been modified or updated to reflect changes in the law.

1997
1997 August (am) questions
1997 August (am) answers
1997 August (pm) questions
1997 August (pm) answers

1998
1998 August (am) questions
1998 August (am) answers
1998 August (pm) questions
1998 August (pm) answers

1999
1999 April (am) questions
1999 April (am) answers
1999 April (pm) questions
1999 April (pm) answers

1999 November (am) questions
1999 November (am) answers
1999 November (pm) questions
1999 November (pm) answers
1999 November Analysis by John M. White

2000
2000 April (am) questions
2000 April (am) answers
2000 April (pm) questions
2000 April (pm) answers
2000 April Analysis by John M. White

2000 October (am) questions
2000 October (am) answers
2000 October (pm) questions
2000 October (pm) answers

2001
2001 April (am) questions
2001 April (am) answers
2001 April (pm) questions
2001 April (pm) answers

2001 October (am) questions
2001 October (am) answers
2001 October (pm) questions
2001 October (pm) answers

2002
2002 April (am) questions
2002 April (am) answers
2002 April (pm) questions
2002 April (pm) answers
2002 April Analysis by John M. White

2002 October (am) questions
2002 October (am) answers
2002 October (pm) questions
2002 October (pm) answers

2003
2003 April (am) questions
2003 April (am) answers
2003 April (pm) questions
2003 April (pm) answers

2003 October (am) questions
2003 October (am) answers
2003 October (pm) questions
2003 October (pm) answers

{ 132 comments… read them below or add one }

1 IvyNo Gravatar November 29, 2007 at 7:27 pm

For Nov. 3, 99 there are no answers for the a.m. session.

Thanks.

Reply

2 patentbarNo Gravatar November 29, 2007 at 10:46 pm

Thanks Ivy – the problem has been fixed.

Reply

3 ellaNo Gravatar January 10, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Hi,
This is a very helpful website. Many thanks for your hard work. I have two questions:
1. Is there any way you could add supplementary materials like, for example, “Analysis of PTO April 2000 Exam, By John M. White for the PLI Patent Bar Review”. Each exam from Spring and Fall had such an analysis which can be very useful.
2. How is it that we cannot find exam questions after 2003, once the Prometric, electronic exam procedure was implemeted in 2004?.
Thank you very much,

Reply

4 patentbarNo Gravatar January 17, 2008 at 9:14 pm

Ella, Thanks for your comment. I took a break (from studying for the patent bar and working on this site) over the holidays, but I will look into adding “Analysis of PTO April 2000 Exam, By John M. White for the PLI Patent Bar Review”.

In response to your second question: prior to April 2004 the Patent Bar Exam was a written exam administered at various locations across the country twice a year (April and October). Following each exam, the USPTO would publish the questions and answers. After the exam became computerized in 2004, the USPTO no longer published questions and answers. Hence, why “exam questions” from this web site becomes so important.

Reply

5 EllaNo Gravatar January 29, 2008 at 1:41 am

Thank you for your comments. I was able to find very few PLI exam analyses by John White and do not know how far back they go, but they are full of useful comments/exam tips.

Reply

6 patentbarNo Gravatar January 31, 2008 at 1:28 am

I am planning on proving links to the John White comments/exam tips in the near future – thanks.

Reply

7 deeNo Gravatar April 16, 2008 at 2:07 am

There are no questions for Nov 3 1999 p.m. session.
Thank you

Reply

8 neilNo Gravatar May 19, 2008 at 5:30 am

can you activate the links for the 1999 exams. i would really appreciate it.

it would allow me to understand the 1999 analysis better.

Reply

9 patentbarNo Gravatar May 22, 2008 at 12:01 am

I have reactivated more of the links. I will finish the rest of the process this week. Thanks, PB

Reply

10 neilNo Gravatar June 3, 2008 at 7:04 am

this is the BEST exam prep site … period. thanks for all the hard work that you have put into this website.

i was stressing over the exam but passed on my first try.

The key was taking the 2003, 2002 and 2001 exams over and over again until I was scoring 100% on every single section every time (i was able to answer each question in less than 30 seconds when i was finished). this gave me the time on the exam to answer the questions that were not repeats.

p.s. i counted the number of PCT questions … there were 6 in the morning and 6 in the afternoon session.

Reply

11 CarolineNo Gravatar July 1, 2008 at 12:32 am

The answers posted for October 2002 pm exam questions are incorrect. Does anyone has the key to the Oct. 2002 pm exam questions?

Reply

12 upnorthguyNo Gravatar July 2, 2008 at 12:59 am

Caroline-

The answers can be found on the USPTO page at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/oed/oed0210pa.pdf

Reply

13 patentbarNo Gravatar July 31, 2008 at 11:11 pm

The answers for October 2002 (pm) have been corrected.

Reply

14 infantejNo Gravatar July 31, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Is there an analysis from White on the other exams? I find his comments make the material seem more straight forward.

Reply

15 patentbarNo Gravatar July 31, 2008 at 3:45 pm

I don’t have any more White anaylsis. I found those via google. If anyone has any others or finds them on the Internet, I would be happy to add them.

Reply

16 spe1979No Gravatar August 3, 2008 at 3:05 am

I took the patent bar exam 2 days ago. I was kind of nervous, but I passed it on my first try. When I was taking the exam, it was tougher than I expected. It was lots of questions from appeals, PCT and re-examinations. There was also questions from other chapters that I did not expected. The best way to study is to understand the basic and detail processes of examination covered in chapters 700, 2100, 1200, 1400 and 1800. There were questions asking lots of depth and detail questions covered by chapter 700, 1200, 1400, 1800 and 2100. I did not see that much repeat questions from the old exams. However, it was a tough test, but I think everyone can pass it if they spend some time on studying.

Reply

17 DanNo Gravatar March 2, 2009 at 11:21 am

Can anyone of you can explain the weird #3 question on the April 2001 PM Exam? The aneswer is “All answers accepted”, but answer D and E contradict each other.

Very very weird…

Thx,
Dan

Reply

18 DanNo Gravatar March 2, 2009 at 11:25 am

I have one more question for you. See question #34 on Oct 2000 PM. The correct answer given is A, which is related to the extension time of a proper reply.

What I don’t understand is that a replay was set a 2 mths, and the law is saying that it can be extended with another 5 mths, but not more then the statute of 6mths, which ever is earlier.

But in this case, the aswer is accepted as correct, when the applicant files an answer 7 months later…

Appreciate your time to answer these two e-mails…

Thx,
Dan

Reply

19 DanNo Gravatar March 4, 2009 at 12:09 pm

never mind on “Dan March 2, 2009 at 11:25 am” – the answer is in MPEP 710.02(d)

thx!!

Reply

20 DanNo Gravatar March 21, 2009 at 3:05 pm

The remaining White analyses can be found at the PLI site after signing in.

Reply

21 bcphungNo Gravatar June 2, 2009 at 4:32 pm

Do someone know the answer of the question related to clock fan lamp?
Thank you very much

Reply

22 JingNo Gravatar August 19, 2009 at 3:12 am

April, 2002 PM Question 41: I chose C. Thanks if you can explain why “all answers accepted” according to the model answer? .

41. Which of the following USPTO practices or procedures may be properly employed to overcome a rejection properly based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)?

(A) Timely perfecting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) based on a foreign application having a foreign priority filing date that antedates the reference.
(B) Filing a declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 that antedates the cited prior art.
(C) Timely perfecting priority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e) or 120 by amending the specification of the application to contain a specific reference to a prior application having a filing date that antedates the reference.
(D) (A) and (C).
(E) (A), (B) and (C).

Reply

23 RickyNo Gravatar November 4, 2011 at 5:52 pm

I think because it is a “beta” question. It does clearly state what 102(b) is, pulication more than 1 year ago, or 1 year pulic use/sale bar.

(A) is the problem – Claiming earlier foreign priorty could overcome publication type 102(b), but not 1 year pulic use/sale bar.

(B) is wrong for sure.

(C) is correct for sure.

Reply

24 WoodsNo Gravatar December 27, 2009 at 1:41 am

How do I get more modern exams these only go up to 2003. I want the ones from 2004 to 2009 can anyone help?

Reply

25 GoJacketsNo Gravatar December 29, 2009 at 9:35 am

i don’t think they exist.

Reply

26 SNNo Gravatar January 4, 2010 at 1:12 pm

After 2003, the exam went electronic. Prior to 2003 the exams were paper and the answers were published. After 2003, the questions are asked electronically so neither the questions nor the answers are published. Do the old exams as many of the questions are pulled from old exams.

Reply

27 chempgentNo Gravatar February 11, 2010 at 5:20 pm

Has anyone tried opening the old exams with Acrobat 5? I seem to be having trouble opening them. I was trying practice with Acrobat 5. I appreciate the help.

Reply

28 TNo Gravatar February 27, 2010 at 2:16 pm

Just passed yesterday, thanks for the great site.

Let me know if you need the PLI home course – 600.

tmainzer @ hot mail . com

Reply

29 supkanNo Gravatar February 27, 2010 at 7:09 pm

were there any new Qs from PCT?

Reply

30 patjdNo Gravatar March 24, 2010 at 7:45 pm

I passed last week, thanks for the great site.

I am selling my almost entirely unused PRG study materials. This includes: 1) All 4 volumes of volumes of “Patent Practice” textbook,
2) Printed practice questions corresponding to each volume of “Patent Practice,”
3) CD-ROM with over 2,000 practice questions (really helpful),
4) Printed version of MPEP (4 large binders),
5) PRG’s “Latest Tips and Tricks for Success” for passing the patent bar on your first try, and
6) Binder with all handouts from class and my notes.

Price is 750 (paid almost 3,000).

Please respond to this thread if interested.

Reply

31 jcNo Gravatar April 7, 2010 at 8:26 pm

Hi patjd,

Congrats on passing the exams!! yes, I am interested in your PRG exam prep..

Reply

32 patjdNo Gravatar April 21, 2010 at 2:59 pm

Please e-mail me at tshapirobarr @ hotmail.com

33 J. SimhaNo Gravatar April 21, 2010 at 7:49 pm

I passed yesterday, thanks to the contributors of this site. It was very useful.
I had a bunch of old questions:
Laurel, Abbot and Hardy
Lip gloss-102(b)
obviousness – chemical composition 34.9% in the prior art and 35% in the application or the otherway around
Multiple dependent claims 147 is the answer
IDS
Verification
Copper substrate
DRAM
door handle

A couple new questions:
102(g) qualifications – invention need not be patented
Use of 1.131- for 102(a) rejections, 102(a) and 102(g) rejections and 2 more options
PCT- 102(e) date of a PCT application which has oath missing but fee and application submitted . I chose the date when oath was submitted as per 317 or national stage requirement.
Similar question as above, translation missing

Reply

34 SNo Gravatar May 4, 2010 at 9:28 am

Is there a way to make some (or all of these) old exams timed, like in freepatentbar.com?

I think that would be very useful.

Thank you,

Reply

35 adminNo Gravatar May 4, 2010 at 11:21 am

Hi S,
usptoExam.com, one of our sponsors, does this quite well. :-)

Reply

36 LMNo Gravatar December 26, 2010 at 3:10 am

I tried to subscribe for exam questions on usptoexam.com but it says subcription no longer available :(
LM

37 thwallsNo Gravatar May 4, 2010 at 10:50 pm

I have a question about the Oct. 17, 2001 AM exam. Question 38.

Registered practitioner Roni files a utility patent application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) in the USPTO having one claim on May 6, 1998. A proper final rejection of claim 1 was mailed on June 28, 2000. Roni files a request for continued examination with the appropriate fee on September 12, 2000, and submits an amendment to claim 1 with the request. On October 7, 2000, Roni learns about a publication (the “Columbus reference”) which she knows to be material to patentability of claim 1, but which was not considered by the examiner during
prosecution of the application. Roni prepares an information disclosure statement that complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98, listing the Columbus reference. The finality of the action on June 28, 2000, is withdrawn in an Office action on November 20, 2000, which is after the filing of the request for continued examination. Which of the following actions, if taken by Roni, will properly result in the Columbus reference being considered by the Office during the pendency of the application?

(A) Filing the information disclosure statement on November 15, 2000, without any further statement and without the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p).
(B) Filing the information disclosure statement on December 11, 2000, without any further statement and without the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p).
(C) Filing the information disclosure statement on December 13, 2000, without any further statement and without the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p).
(D) (A) or (B) above.
(E) None of the above.

I’m not seeing why the answer to this question is A.

Reply

38 RofelNo Gravatar May 5, 2010 at 10:37 am

The IDS filing in Answer A is November 15, 2000 – which is before November 20, 2000 Office Action. Thus, IDS requirements before a first Office Action is applied. See 609.01 as a guide in IDS. Thanks.

Reply

39 RickyNo Gravatar November 4, 2011 at 5:58 pm

exactlly. There is no such a 3-month window for IDS in RCE, because RCE is not a new application.

40 SNo Gravatar May 11, 2010 at 8:21 pm

Something doesn’t seem right here. I think E should be the answer. Can somebody explain how the answer can be correct for this question,
April 2002 AM

19. On June 9, 2000, you file two complete patent applications on behalf of your
client, ABC Inc. The subject matter of the patent applications relates to a new
automotive body design. One of the applications is filed as a utility application (A#1),
and other is filed as a design application (A#2). Prosecution of each application moves
forward independently of each other, and you receive final office actions in each
application rejecting the respective claim(s) in each application. Your client, in
consultation with you, decides that she would rather pursue prosecution in each case
rather than appeal the final rejections. Which of following options is available to you
under the USPTO rules and procedures ?
(A) File a request for continuing examination (RCE) for both A#1 and A#2.
(B) File a request for continuing examination (RCE) for A#1 and a continuing
prosecution application (CPA) for A#2.
(C) File a request for continuing examination (RCE) for A#2 but not A#1.
(D) File a continuing prosecution application (CPA) for both A#1 and A#2.
(E) File a continuing prosecution application (CPA) for A#1 but not A#2.

Answer: 19. ANSWER: (B). 37 C.F.R. § 1.153(d)(I)(i)(B). A design application is eligible for
continuing prosecution application procedures. 37 C.F.R. § 1.114 (e)(4) explains that RCE
procedure is not available for design applications, therefore (A) and (C) are wrong. Answer (D)
is wrong because under 37 C.F.R. §1.53(d) the filing date of the application (A#1) must be
before May 29, 2000. Answer (E) is wrong for the same reason.

MPEP 1502.01:
(H)
A Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 may only be filed in utility and plant applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, while RCE is not available for design applications (see 37 CFR 1.114(e)).
(I)
* >Effective July 14, 2003, continuedonly(see 37 CFR 1.53(d)(1)(i)). Prior to July 14, 2003, CPA practice was< available for utility and plant applications only where the prior application has a filing date prior to May 29, 2000 **.

Reply

41 thwallsNo Gravatar May 12, 2010 at 4:46 pm

That shows up a lot it seems. They like to lure you in with an answer that’s partially correct. You always have to look for the one that’s the most correct.

Reply

42 newtopatentbarNo Gravatar May 12, 2010 at 10:56 am

S,
Once again, this question demonstrated that in patent bar exams, you choose the best answers not the correct answers.

Reply

43 newtopatentbarNo Gravatar May 15, 2010 at 2:32 pm

Hello,
Can anybody here help me understand the following question (oct 03, pm. #49)?
49. A patent specification discloses a personal computer comprising a microprocessor and a
random access memory. There is no disclosure in the specification of the minimum amount of
storage for the random access memory. In the disclosed preferred embodiment, the
microprocessor has a clock speed of 100-200 megahertz. Claims 9 and 10, presented below, are
original claims in the application. Claim 11, presented below, was added by amendment after an
Office action.
9. A personal computer comprising a microprocessor and a random access memory that
includes at least 1 gigabyte of storage.
10. The personal computer of Claim 9, wherein the microprocessor has a clock speed of
100-200 megahertz.
11. The personal computer of Claim 10, wherein the random access memory is greater
than ½ gigabyte of storage.
Which of the following statements is or are in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures
as related in the MPEP regarding the respective claims under the fourth paragraph of 35
USC 112?
(A) Claim 9 is a proper independent claim, and Claims 10 and 11 are proper
dependent claims.
(B) Claim 9 is a proper independent claim, and Claims 10 and 11 are improper
dependent claims.
(C) Claim 9 is an improper independent claim, and Claims 10 and 11 are improper
dependent claims.
(D) Claim 9 is an improper independent claim, and Claims 10 and 11 are proper
dependent claims.
(E) Claim 9 is a proper independent claim, Claim 10 is a proper dependent claim, and
Claim 11 is an improper dependent claim.
The answer is (E). I chose (C), because I think claim 9 is improper for using “at least” phrase, it is indefinite. Am I wrong here?
Thanks

Reply

44 RofelNo Gravatar May 15, 2010 at 5:05 pm

use of “at least” is not indefinite..claim 11 is a dependent claim and should restrict/narrow the claim it is depending from (i.e., claim 9)..in the problem, claim 9 claims “at least 1 gigabyte” while claim 11 claims “greater than 1/2 gigabyte.” thus, claim 11 improperly restricts/narrows claim 9 (i.e., 1/2 gig does not fall within min of 1 gig as claimed)..

(i don’t have specific MPEP rules to back up my reply above but it should be there)

Reply

45 thwallsNo Gravatar May 16, 2010 at 12:53 am

See MPEP 2163.05 (III. Range Limitations)
“With respect to changing numerical range limitations, the analysis must take into account which ranges one skilled in the art would consider inherently supported by the discussion in the original disclosure.”

Also, see 2164.08 “Enablement Commensurate in Scope With the Claims [R-2]” and 2173.05(c) “Numerical Ranges and Amounts Limitations” (II. Open-Ended Numerical Ranges)

If you look through the pertinent cases you can see that sometimes it can be a point of indefiniteness, but it really depends on how the information in the claim using “at least” compares to the spec and how that claim would be interpreted by PHOSITA. If they gave a range in the spec then that would make this question completely different.

In the problem, the question is not regarding a range but in this case you’re first given Claim 9 which states at least 1 gigabyte. Claim 11 which depends from claim 10 which depends from claim 9 has the same limitation of at least 1 gigabyte.

In other words I completely concur with Rofel.

46 ceejayNo Gravatar November 5, 2013 at 10:53 pm

While it’s true that claim 9 might be improper, it is not improper under the fourth paragraph of 35 USC 112. Only claim 11 is improper because it fails to further limit the claim on which it depends. Here is the text of the statute [112 fourth paragraph]: “[A] claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.”

47 SunilNo Gravatar August 7, 2010 at 7:48 pm

Does anyone know if there is any collection of old questions from 2003 available ? I have purchased a CD that contains old questions only upto 2003.

Reply

48 JebNo Gravatar November 13, 2010 at 12:18 pm

how about the old exams posted on this site?

Reply

49 JebNo Gravatar November 12, 2010 at 5:42 pm

Can anyone explain this:

The
provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(2) were amended to eliminate the requirement that a
nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of a provisional application must have been filed
during the pendency of the provisional. See, “Request for Continued Examination Practice and
Changes to Provisional Application Practice; Final Rule,” 65 F.R. 50092, 50098, left and middle
columns (Aug. 16, 2000), 1238 O.G. 13 (Sept. 5, 2000).

I’ve seen it twice in the practice exams. How does this make any sense when we know that a nonprovisional application must be filed within 12 months of the provisional filing date?

Reply

50 Big Bad Voodoo DaddyNo Gravatar May 31, 2011 at 12:25 am

What that means is that if a provisional application is abandonded (usually an express abandonment), but benefit is claimed within 12 mos of filing the same, there is no problem. The fee must have been paid. In short there is no requirement for copendency of the prov and non prov (within the 12 mo window). However also note that if you convert (as opposed to claiming benefit) – they must be copending.
it is quite cryptic in the mpep.

Reply

51 maggieNo Gravatar October 11, 2011 at 12:32 pm

II. TIME FOR FILING LATER-FILED APPLICATIONS

A. Claiming the Benefit of Provisional Applications

When a later-filed application is claiming the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the nonprovisional application must be filed not later than 12 months after the date on which the provisional application was filed. If the day that is 12 months after the filing date of a provisional application falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia, the nonprovisional application may be filed on the next succeeding business day. See 35 U.S.C. 21(b), 37 CFR 1.7(b), and MPEP § 201.04(b) and § 505.

Public Law 106-113 amended 35 U.S.C. 119(e)(2) to eliminate the copendency requirement for a nonprovisional application claiming benefit of a provisional application. 35 U.S.C. 119(e)(2) as amended by Public Law 106-113 is effective as of November 29, 1999 and applies to any provisional applications filed on or after June 8, 1995 but has no effect on any patent which is the subject of litigation in an action commenced before November 29, 1999. Although a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of a provisional application is not required to be copending with the provisional application, abandonment of a provisional application for failure to pay the basic filing fee would indicate that the nonprovisional application could not claim the benefit of the provisional application because the basic filing fee was not paid within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(g) as required by 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4).

Reply

52 maddieNo Gravatar May 9, 2011 at 9:55 pm

I’ m studying these old exams and can’t figure out which version of the MPEP was in effect for the exam at that time. Revision 2? If you can point me to where I can find the answer to this question, would be greatly appreciated.

Reply

53 soonaaNo Gravatar August 6, 2011 at 1:46 am

can anyone help me with #35 on the 2000 April AM exam? Does the reference qualify as 102(b) even though it is dated after the application’s filing date? Thanks.

Reply

54 maggieNo Gravatar September 14, 2011 at 4:33 am

Depends on what kind of rejection the prior art it is being used for
(a) anticipation (b) state of the art (c) enablement read chapter 2100

But for the question the key lies within this statement ” properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based upon reference” when they use “properly rejected” this means in the answer you CANNOT argue back. This leads you to the anwser (b) File an amendment canceling the rejected claims and argue patentability of the
remaining claims.

Reply

55 soonaaNo Gravatar August 6, 2011 at 2:14 am

And another question for the 2000 April AM exam. For #50, if the date the application was filed was a Monday instead of a Tuesday (ie, one year limit for 102(b) was during the weekend), would the applicant be entitled for a patent? (there would not be a 102(b) bar)? thanks.

Reply

56 maggieNo Gravatar September 14, 2011 at 4:39 am

The question states there is a 102(b) bar non-final rejection.
The question is how can you overcome a 102 (b) bar as of Mon Feb 7 2000 but the following
–> Look- up overcoming 102(b) rejections in MPEP
–> Know this difference in overcoming 102 vs 103 rejections.
–> Leads you to the answer (E) none of the options stated above will work

Reply

57 RickyNo Gravatar November 3, 2011 at 4:25 pm

Guys, I have a question about 112 4th paragraph:

2003 Oct PM Q22

22. Which, if any, of the following statements is in accord with the patent laws, rules and
procedures as related in the MPEP?
(A) Where an inventor’s residence is stated correctly in the 37 CFR 1.76 application data sheet and incorrectly in the inventor’s 37 CFR 1.63 oath or declaration, the discrepancy must be corrected by filing a supplemental 37 CFR 1.67 oath or declaration giving the correct residence.
(B) Where two inventors file separate 37 CFR 1.63 oaths or declarations which do not identify both inventors, the USPTO will presume they are joint inventors and will not require new oaths or declarations.
(C) A dependent claim which merely repeats a limitation that appears in the claim on which it depends is properly rejected under the fourth paragraph of 35 USC 112.
(D) In a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e)(1) specifying that “each item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was first cited in any communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application not more than three months prior to the filing of the statement,” the three-month period begins on the date the communication was first received by either a foreign associate or a U.S. registered practitioner.
(E) None of statements (A) to (D) is correct.

The answer is (E). (C) is incorrect because — MPEP § 608.01(n), under the
heading “II. Treatment Of Improper DependentClaims,” states “[c]laims which are in improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) by using form paragraph 7.36.” The claim should not be rejected. Further as for (C), MPEP § 608.01(n), under heading “III. Infringement Test,” states “[a] dependent claim does not lack compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, simply because there is a question as to (1) the significance of the further limitation added by the dependent claim, or (2) whether the further limitation in fact changes the scope of the dependent claim from that of the claim from which it depends. The test for a proper dependent claim under the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 is whether the dependent claim includes every limitation of the claim from which it depends. The test is not one of whether the claims differ in scope.”

Mu question is — Does this mean 112, 4th paragraph could only be used to object improper dependant claims, but NEVER be used to reject improper dependant claims?

Reply

58 maggieNo Gravatar November 3, 2011 at 7:32 pm

I think Rule 75 is the objections 112 4p is a law so it is a rejection

Reply

59 AMACNo Gravatar November 3, 2011 at 4:47 pm

So I’m getting ready to prepare for the bar exam and am grateful for everyone’s tips. I want to get a book to overview the MPEP and stuck between an ebook from Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004T79EH0/sr=1-4/qid=1320352133/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1320352133&sr=1-4&seller=) and Longacre’s review book suggested here (http://www.amazon.com/Longacre-Patent-Review-Study-Guide/dp/0735584729/ref=pd_cp_b_4). I want to use the ebook since it’s a PDF and half the price, but the half price also makes me weary that it won’t help as much as Longacre’s. Not sure if anyone is even on this site anymore but thanks for any replies!

Reply

60 RickyNo Gravatar November 4, 2011 at 3:47 pm

2000 April PM Q28

28. Which of the following is true?
(A) On appeal of a rejection of ten claims to the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences, each appealed claim stands or falls separately as a result of
appellant pointing out differences in what the claims cover.
(B) The 2-month period for filing a petition mentioned in 37 CFR 1.181(f) is
extendable under 37 CFR 1.136(a).
(C) An examiner may enter a new ground of rejection in the examiner’s answer to an applicant’s appeal brief.
(D) After filing a notice of appeal, an applicant is estopped from further prosecuting the same claims in a continuation application.
(E) When desiring to claim foreign priority, the oath or declaration in a reissue
application must claim foreign priority even though the priority claim was made in the original patent.

The answer given at that time is (E), but I think (C) is the correct answer NOW. The rule changed (in 2004?).

Reply

61 RickyNo Gravatar November 4, 2011 at 4:33 pm

I mean, both (C) and (E) are correct now.

Reply

62 SoBeNo Gravatar November 4, 2011 at 6:27 pm

Agreed, New Grounds of Rejection are permitted in an Examiner’s Answer on or after Sept 13, 2004. MPEP 1207.03.
Choices (C) and (E) are definitely True.
In addition, choice (D) seems worth noting…
MPEP 1215.01 reads “To avoid the rendering of decisions by the Board in applications which have already been refiled as continuations, applicants should promptly inform the *>Chief Clerk< of the Board in writing as soon as they have positively decided to refile or to abandon an application containing an appeal awaiting a decision. Applicants also should advise the Board when an RCE is filed in an application containing an appeal awaiting decision. Failure to exercise appropriate diligence in this matter may result in the Board refusing an otherwise proper request to vacate its decision."

After filing an appeal, it is my understanding that an applicant is definitely not permitted to prosecute the same claims (i.e. the claims under appeal) in a continuation application without first withdrawing those claims from appeal. How do you 'refile as a continuation" without first withdrawing from an appeal by way of a proper RCE? The way I understand it, you have to file a proper RCE withdrawing claims from appeal, then continuation is possible. Doesn't this mean that you are, in fact, estopped from further prosecuting the same claims in a continuation application after you file a notice of appeal, making choice (D) a true statement?

Reply

63 SoBeNo Gravatar November 4, 2011 at 6:49 pm

After reading chapter 1200 some more I realize that applicant has the option to reopen prosecution at numerous stages of the appeal process, and (I’m assuming) can file a continuation whenever prosecution has been reopened. As such, after filing a notice of appeal, the applicant may (i.e. is not estopped) from filing a continuation on those claims, thus making choice (D) an incorrect statement.

Reply

64 Juris PrudenceNo Gravatar January 28, 2012 at 4:43 pm

Can someone clear this question up for me, from Q26, Oct. 2003, pm?
The answer is presumably “B” but that’s based on 35 USC 103(a) in the question really being 102(a). Is there a typo in this question? Thank you so much. JP

Office action including both an affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.131 and an affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.132 may be in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
(A) In a timely reply to a non-final Office action, where the examiner’s sole rejection of appellant’s claims is based on an alleged violation of the enablement requirement of 35 USC 112.
(B) In a timely reply to non-final Office action, where the examiner’s sole rejection of appellant’s claims is a rejection under 35 USC 103(a) employing a non-patent document that was published less than one year prior to the filing date of appellant’s patent application.
(C) In a timely reply to a non-final Office action, where the examiner’s sole rejection of appellant’s claims is a rejection under 35 USC 103(a) employing a noncommonly owned U.S. patent as prior art under 35 USC 102 (e) that claims the same invention as applicant.
(D) In a timely reply to an examiner’s answer presenting the affidavits for the first time, where in the examiner’s first Office action and final rejection, the examiner maintains the same rejection under 35 USC 103(a) of all of appellant’s claims based in part on a non-patent document that was published less than one year prior to the filing date of appellant’s patent application.
(E) In a timely reply to a final Office action presenting the affidavits for the first time, where in the examiner’s first Office action, the examiner’s sole rejection of
appellant’s claims is a rejection under 35 USC 103(a) employing a non-patent
document that was published less than one year prior to the filing date of
appellant’s patent application.

Reply

65 SolNo Gravatar February 5, 2012 at 3:06 am

I guess,

use the affidavit to disqualify the prior art as the inventors’ own work within one year, so it is not a 102(b) prior art, so not applicable in 103 rejection.

Reply

66 JenNo Gravatar February 16, 2012 at 12:31 pm

I just passed the patent bar using PLI’s Exam Focus Patent Bar Review materials. I purchased these materials full price ~$2,000 but I am selling them for only $500 because: they are from 2010, it does not include Patware and there are some highlighting and writing. Patware is now accessed online rather than on CD.

I have ALL the updated supplemental materials starting from 2011 until 2012 because PLI was kind enough to send them to me.

Although I bought the materials in 2010, I used all of the same materials when I passed on Feb. 1, 2012.

The materials include:

All lectures on CD (from 2010)
Course Lecture
Study Guide
Claim Drafting and Amendment Supplement
Study Guide Exercise & Practice Exam Materials
ClaimsLight/Claim Drafting Workbook
Post Course Materials
Key Words Glossary
Updates on the 2011 and 2012 changes

I am located in SF Bay Area so if you’re local, we can meet at a public place for you to check out the materials.

sertag@hotmail.com

Thanks for looking!

Reply

67 dcnativeNo Gravatar February 21, 2012 at 8:41 pm

This is a testimonial…

I passed the patent bar exam today (first attempt). Thank you to all of the contributors to this website (MyPatentBar.com). This website was my study guide. Over approximately 10 weeks I estimate that I devoted about 250 hours in preparation. Starting slowly at first and gradually building with intensity as my exam date drew closer. Basically, I studied the information provided under the “Study Guide” tab of the website during the early weeks, seriously, thoroughly studying the subject matter and referring when necessary to MPEP to add clarification. Also during these early weeks I read all of the supplemental source material identified on the USPTO website. This effort consumed the first 6+ weeks. Then, for about the last four weeks I intensely studied this website’s “Exam Questions and Concepts” and the “Repeat Questions” tabs, as well as the “Old Exam” questions/answers from the April and October 2002 and 2003 exams that were not included under the “Repeat Questions” tab. I can’t overemphasize that when you study these exam concepts and exam questions, you should NOT be doing it in an effort to commit the specifics of the question/answer to memory, but to familiarize yourself with just how patent bar exam questions are structured and to, most importantly, increase your understanding of the application of patent law in various scenarios. It is important to not only understand why the right answer is right, but also why the wrong answers are wrong. I spent a lot of time during this effort going back to the MPEP and reading (and understanding) the referenced provisions. This helped at lot because on my exam today there were no more than about 25-30 questions that were recognizably repeat questions (or variants). However, being able to carefully read the exam questions and answer choices and then “reasoning” (deducing) what I felt to be the correct answer based on my understanding of the resolution in closely similar scenarios I am sure benefited me. Finally, I think that the exam was a fair test of one’s understanding of the principles of patent law. I detected no trick questions or questions focused on nuanced minor facts. It benefited me greatly to have put in place a preparation strategy that I tracked closely on a regular basis during the 10 weeks. I wanted to give myself a fair chance of passing on the first attempt and I thank God that my efforts paid off. It was important for me also to not only go into this exam feeling confident about my preparation, but also to take a deep breath, slow down, and be sure to intently concentrate during the exam. I completed the exam one question at a time on a pace that essentially consumed the two full three-hour sessions (100 questions total). Again, special thanks to the MyPatentBar.com website owner(s), and thanks to all the contributors. The questions and answers provided by the numerous contributors (in the forums) were very helpful too. Thanks.

Reply

68 PotentialNo Gravatar May 6, 2012 at 12:01 pm

I have a problem downloading 2000 -2002 questions and answers. When I click on the link, the screen either freezes or goes blank. I keep waiting for hours, it is still freezing or blank. Any suggestions?

Reply

69 SabrinaNo Gravatar May 6, 2012 at 3:41 pm

Potential: I just clicked on the first couple of tests from each year and the pdf files came right up. What this tells me is that there is an issue on your end and not with the website or files.

Here are some suggestions:

1. Try restarting your computer. You may have updates that will not take effect until you restart. If that doesn’t work…

2. Check to see if you need to update your adobe reader software. I know they pushed out some updates a few months ago. If so, download the updates and then restart your computer. If that doesn’t work…

3. Try using a different computer to download the files.

Hope this helps…Good luck

Reply

70 PotentialNo Gravatar May 7, 2012 at 1:08 pm

Hi Sabrina,
Yes I tried a different computer and now am able to download files.
However, 2000 Oct. PM questions, I still can not download. Do you have trouble opening that link?

Thanks.

71 SabrinaNo Gravatar May 7, 2012 at 4:17 pm

Yes, I was able to open the Oct 2000 PM questions.

72 KeenerNo Gravatar May 8, 2012 at 7:28 am

The links work, I’ve been downloading them left & right. Sorry.

73 KeenerNo Gravatar May 6, 2012 at 6:20 pm

Okay Question 33 on April 2002 am test asks who can file response to 1.105 requirement. A: inventor B: assignee old entire interest C: attorney D: A-C
E: A and C.
PTO say D based on 1.105 referring to 1.156 naming those who are bound by disclosure duty.
I prefer E since the assignee can be an entity and duty to disclose is restricted to a person (rules out everyone in a company being under the requirement to disclose)
Where did I go wrong?

Reply

74 KeenerNo Gravatar May 6, 2012 at 6:27 pm

While we are on April 2002 AM, look at question 20 as well. Attorney is trying to get more info on unelected, possibly unpublished, claims (although answers suggest he only wants status info).

Why would the answer be E saying one can only inquire about subsequently file apps and apparently ruling out D which say you can find inquire on previously and subsequently filed app.

I can find Parent AND Child information on PAIR.
Can someone explain this to me?

Reply

75 rossco993No Gravatar August 7, 2012 at 6:27 pm

Just passed today 8/07/12. First try. Bad news though, almost no repeats. There were maybe 10 that seemed familair. A few verbatim from this site and the rest variations. And I memorized all of the repeats and exam questions. I basically just had to look every question up in the MPEP. Thats the key. I was hoping to rely on repeats but I dont recommend it now. I used the PLI 2006 DVD lectures that I got from a friend of mine. Went through them in a week or so. Then I went through the questions on this site for about a week. Thats all there is to it. The rest you just have to look up. Type keywords into the subject matter index. It will take you to the right place. Lots of PCT, Appeals, Obviousness. I think one of the only repeats i got was the 147 claim counting question. Dont get too crazy with studying. Maybe 1 month max of part time study. Its mostly just look up. I saw some people on here saying they studied for like 250 hours. Way overboard. I figured Id get the exam out of the way before the major changes. Good luck guys.

Reply

76 olkd exsmsNo Gravatar March 25, 2014 at 6:51 pm

97 exams are too old to practice with

Reply

77 RicoNo Gravatar August 8, 2012 at 8:22 pm

Hey anyone have any info on how accurate this site is?
http://patentbarquestions.com/Questions_reportedly_asked_in_the_Patent_Bar_Exam

Additionally, how important are the supplemental material documents?

Reply

78 barexamNo Gravatar September 10, 2012 at 2:43 pm

Hi,
For prioritised exam limit is 10,000 annual. Which was earlier 500. Is there any limit for accelerated exam too. I don;t know I am little confused as I read in one of the question wherein it says “answer is 500 beware one of statement would say 10,000″Please provide clarity.
Thanks in advance.

Reply

79 barexamNo Gravatar September 10, 2012 at 2:44 pm

So question is Old man goes to hospital and gets an idea for an invention on medical dispense system. He wants USPTO to review invention within 12 months.. So can his application be filed under prioritised examination with 4/30 claim and the applicant limit is 10,000 or 500 ?
Please provide solution.
Thanks

Reply

80 AMJAYNo Gravatar September 20, 2012 at 10:14 pm

The supplemental document covering implementation of the prioritized exam track covers this. The question to which you are referring basically asks whether or not the applicant should bother applying for the prioritized exam track if there have already been 10,000 requests that year. Since 10,000 is the annual limit (currently), he should only bother requesting if there are less than that number of requests. So, go with the answer that says there have only been 500 applicants.

Reply

81 KarlMalownzNo Gravatar September 25, 2012 at 5:59 pm

Just want to give a quick shout out to this site. Passed today (9/25/12) and I owe it entirely to the wealth of material here that is organized so very nicely as well as the contributions coming from the independent users. You all saved me $2K on PLI’s happy horseshit. Kudos and good luck to you all.

Reply

82 KevinNo Gravatar October 10, 2012 at 6:07 pm

KarlMalownz,

Can you detail how you studied for the exams? I am starting to gather materials and will start studying next week. I’m just having trouble figuring out what study materials I need. My plan is.

1. Buy the BullsEye prep materials and study that.
2. Read all the outlines on this site under “study guide” section.
2. Study repeat questions
3. Study old exams

Somehow, that doesn’t feel like enough? Do you have any suggestions? Thanks!

Reply

83 Horse Racing Tips FreeNo Gravatar February 9, 2013 at 3:37 am

ekmownzqbufoucbs, Horse Racing Tips, LdFFiCh, [url=http://uk-horseracing-tips.co.uk/]Horse Racing Betting Tips[/url], HWoxSYZ, http://uk-horseracing-tips.co.uk/ Free Horse Racing Tips Uk, NwqnELX.

Reply

84 PavlosNo Gravatar February 11, 2013 at 11:52 am

I don’t understand the following question (April 2002 am):

8. On March 20, 2000, Patsy Practitioner filed a patent application on widget Y for the ABC Company based on a patent application filed in Germany for which benefit of priority was claimed. The sole inventor of widget Y is Clark. On September 13, 2000, Patsy received a first Office action on the merits rejecting all the claims of widget Y under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Jones in view of Smith. When reviewing the Jones reference, Patsy notices that the assignee is the ABC Company, that the Jones patent application was filed on April 3, 1999, and that the Jones patent was granted on January 24, 2000. Jones does not claim the same patentable invention as Clark’s patent application on widget Y. Patsy wants to overcome the rejection without amending the claims. Which of the following replies independently of the other replies would not be in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedures?

(A) A reply traversing the rejection by correctly arguing that Jones in view of Smith fails to teach widget Y as claimed, and specifically and correctly pointing out claimed elements that the combination lacks.

(B) A reply traversing the rejection by relying on an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 that antedates the Jones reference.

(C) A reply traversing the rejection by relying on an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 containing evidence of criticality or unexpected results.

(D) A reply traversing the rejection by stating that the invention of widget Y and the Jones patent were commonly owned by ABC Company at the time of the invention of widget Y, and therefore, Jones is disqualified as a reference via 35 U.S.C. § 103(c).

(E) A reply traversing the rejection by perfecting a claim of priority to Clark’s German application, filed March 21, 1999, disclosing widget Y under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d).

How would B be a proper answer? I thought 1.131 could only be used to overcome rejections under 102(a) or 102(e).

Reply

85 BrentNo Gravatar February 16, 2013 at 9:44 am

An obviousness rejection under 35 USC 103 relies on prior art that is qualified by 35 USC 102. If the prior art no longer qualifies under 35 USC 102, it cannot support an obviousness rejection under 35 USC 103. 37 CFR 1.131 enables an applicant to “swear behind” a reference, disqualifing it under 102(a) and 102(e). Thus,by doing so, a rejection under 35 USC 103 will be traversed.

Reply

86 NeilNo Gravatar April 12, 2013 at 3:39 pm

This question had me stumped too. I did a google search and discovered the correct answer is actually D. This link contains the USPTO response to someone who petitioned the Office about this question – http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=OED&flNm=0160_REG_2003-02-10. See page 4 of the memo.

87 Bad Credit Car Loans WinnipegNo Gravatar February 12, 2013 at 1:10 am

uksmtnzqbufoucbs, Bad Credit Car Loans, bQAsDXm, [url=http://cabadcreditcarloans.com/]Bad Credit Car Loans Mississauga[/url], JnMdzXI, http://cabadcreditcarloans.com/ Bad Credit Car Loans, aNmrKAq.

Reply

88 how to improve your memoryNo Gravatar February 15, 2013 at 6:40 pm

Hello, i feel that i noticed you visited my weblog thus i came to go back the choose?.I am attempting to to find things to improve my site!I assume its ok to make use of a few of your ideas!!

Reply

89 Mitch ApperNo Gravatar February 21, 2013 at 6:52 pm

February 21, 2013 – Patent Bar Study Partner Wanted -

I’m interested in finding anyone in the LA area that is interested in either forming a study group to study for the patent bar is interested in just studying one on one with me. Email me with the word “Patent Bar” in the subject line – Mitch – mapper@pobox.com

Reply

90 BfusionNo Gravatar February 22, 2013 at 10:58 am

Hey Mitch,

If you don’t / can’t find study partners in the LA area, we’re helping people online (www.wysebridge.com) tutoring, giving feedback, answering questions, etc.

The site developed from helping a lot of test takers last year on this site (tutoring them, offering my own study materials, condensed versions of questions, etc).

There is also a lot of free material on the site as well.

Hope you can find someone to study with in the area!

Reply

91 RyanNo Gravatar March 6, 2013 at 3:38 pm

Why do many of the answers to the exam questions reference the Federal Register and Official Gazette? I get that there may be useful info in those documents, but if the test is based entirely on the MPEP, then it doesn’t seem particularly helpful to know where to find info in the F.R. and O.G.

Reply

92 Kansas_manNo Gravatar March 11, 2013 at 1:58 am

HI All,

I am planning to take the exam in May, I have an old version (from last year) of PLI. Does anyone know how to supplement for the new material that will be added by April 2nd? I cannot afford a lot of money so your help is appreciated. Thanks

Reply

93 ClaudiaNo Gravatar March 25, 2013 at 4:25 pm

Does anyone know of the Patent Bar prep group that was $495 and starting this week MArch 30th? it is a five week course Wednesday and Saturday.

Reply

94 DanNo Gravatar April 27, 2013 at 5:40 pm

I believe you are referring to http://ustreetprep.com/

They have live courses in DC, with an option to join online for that price range. It’s actually 6 weeks and now takes place on Tuesdays and Saturdays

Reply

95 monaNo Gravatar April 2, 2013 at 5:31 pm

Hi,

I was planning to reappear in exam as I could not pass during my last attempt. Can any one please tell me the procedure? Do I need to resend all my transcripts again along with application form or I just need to fill in application form? I was assuming since they already checked my transcripts during my previous attempt they may not require marks sheet again this time. Can any one please comment, It will be really a great help.
Many thanks

Reply

96 Anthony DNo Gravatar July 23, 2013 at 10:29 am

Hey I am looking to take within the next two weeks, anybody have a supplemental for the new material that has been added to the exam?

Reply

97 HelpNo Gravatar August 19, 2013 at 5:06 pm

Hi,

I am about to start studying for the patent bar, and I have old PLI material to study. Can someone tell me what chapters in PLI material are useless to me since some stuff has changed? Thanks

Reply

98 amyNo Gravatar August 23, 2013 at 1:15 pm

I have a question related to question #15 of old exam 1997 Aug. morning session. I understand Provisional patent expires in 12 mos. But if the 12 mo deadline falls on Sunday (Feb 9, 1996 in this question). Isn’t it ok to file a revival on the following monday (2/10/97, answer D)?

Reply

99 First2FileNo Gravatar August 25, 2013 at 7:50 pm

It is. MPEP 201.11 clearly states that D should be an OK answer. But I suppose one way to look at it is that if D is correct then C has to be an even “more correct” answer since C avoids the Saturday/Sunday/Federal Holiday exception altogether. I disagree with the answer explanation here that D is incorrect. They’d likely accept both answers (C and D).

Reply

100 amyNo Gravatar August 26, 2013 at 4:54 pm

Thanks for your explanation!

Reply

101 amyNo Gravatar September 1, 2013 at 8:41 pm

I have a question related to 1998Aug morning, #44. What is necessary to get a PCT filing date? I chose (E). The answer is (B). The difference is about the names of the inventors. Base on MPEP PCT article 11, section (1)(iii)(c), you do need “name of the applicant”, is it the same as “the names of inventors”? Thanks!

MPEP PCT article 11 is as following:
1) The receiving Office shall accord as the international filing date the date of receipt of the international application, provided that Office has found that, at the time of receipt:

(i) the applicant does not obviously lack, for reasons of residence or nationality, the right to file an international application with the receiving Office,
(ii) the international application is in the prescribed language,
(iii) the international application contains at least the following elements:
(a) an indication that it is intended as an international application,
(b) the designation of at least one Contracting State,
(c) the name of the applicant, as prescribed,
(d) a part which on the face of it appears to be a description,
(e) a part which on the face of it appears to be a claim or claims.

Reply

102 BfusionNo Gravatar September 4, 2013 at 9:19 am

Hi Amy,

good question. Remember, that an applicant does not necessarily = inventor (but, oftentimes an inventor is also the applicant). Thus, according to PCT Article 11, the name of the applicant, as prescribed is NOT the same as “the name(s) of the inventor(s).”

Hope that helps!

Feel free to ask any other questions you have here, or on the wysebridge patent bar review forums, or you can email me directly!

~Bfusion
http://www.wysebridge.com

Reply

103 amyNo Gravatar September 14, 2013 at 9:53 am

Hi I have a question about April21,1999, #28.
I think none of the answer is correct. They will all be barred by 102(b). but the answer says (D) and the explanation seems agree that none of them is good. Could anybody explain this? Thanks!

Reply

104 amyNo Gravatar September 15, 2013 at 11:33 am

Sorry. Forgot to say it is in the morning session of April21, 1999.

Reply

105 Vasant L AbhyankerNo Gravatar October 4, 2013 at 2:38 am

QUESTION 15 FROM AUGUST 1997 EXAM UNDER OLD EXAMS:

It says Answer C is correct and D is wrong. Can someone explain why D is wrong? Particularly since the Patent Office is closed on Saturday, the next business day Monday should be allowed ( In light of MPEP 201.11) ?

Pertinent Info in Question 15 provides the following Info:

On February 9, 1996 Provisional application was filed.

Answer C says Non-Provisional Application must be filed on or before Friday February 7 1997. Hence correct.

Answer D says Non-Provisional Application filed on or before Monday February10 1997 is incorrect since it will be over 12 months. Hence Wrong.

Reply

106 Vasant L AbhyankerNo Gravatar October 4, 2013 at 6:44 am

The QUESTION 15 FROM AUGUST 1997 EXAM UNDER OLD EXAMS pertains to the 1997 Morning Section.

Reply

107 ZhangNo Gravatar February 13, 2014 at 4:05 pm

Hi Everybody,

I am in San Francisco, Bay Area, and am collecting the materials to study for the exam. Can somebody recommend a not-expensive source to get them? Also want to see if someone in the bay area just passed the test and would like to transfer their materials. I also would like to find if there is any Patent Exam study group in this area.

Thank you! Any help would be highly appreciated.

Reply

108 veritasNo Gravatar February 14, 2014 at 12:52 am

You can expect a spam from Wysebridge plugging his site.

I passed the exam a month ago using a six year old PLI outline and the repeats listed on this site. Plenty of PLI outlines for sale cheap on ebay for a few hundred bucks.

Reply

109 ChuckNo Gravatar February 15, 2014 at 1:47 pm

How does the search function work? if my search for an initial term brings me to position within a chapter, and I search for another term, will it start at my current position or will it start from the beginning of the chapter?

Reply

110 JustenNo Gravatar March 6, 2014 at 5:30 pm

If I remember correctly, it starts on the current page you are looking at.

Reply

111 ZhangNo Gravatar March 6, 2014 at 2:34 pm

Hi Veritas, thanks much for your reply. I am trying to get some PLI materials from ebay.

By the way, did anybody once use OmniPrep online review materials? Is that good? Thanks.

Reply

112 JustenNo Gravatar March 6, 2014 at 5:41 pm

I’ve seen the PLI videos. They’re great if you have no background whatsoever because they’re a guy using layman’s terms for everything. But if you have any experience at all then you don’t need to spend that much.
I have a friend who just used Omni Prep. She said she didn’t focus on the materials as much as just answering about 2000 questions and she passed after only studying for two weeks.
I’m doing patenteducationseries.com because it’s cheap, I’m taking it next week and I’m totally going to pass, but I’ve been studying for months. I think patenteducationseries.com might be a little excessive so if you’re in a hurry you might want the 2000 questions route. But I’ve failed it twice so I’m covering all my bases this time.

Reply

113 Bfusion.No Gravatar March 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm

HI Zhang and Justen,

All the best to you as you study (and take) the exam soon!

I’ve been on this forum for a while (actually started here back in 12 with my studies), and is what prompted me to start tutoring and helping others studying for the exam. I do run an online Patent Bar Review (Wysebridge), but…if you have any questions in general as well, please don’t hesitate to reach out!

All the best!
~Bfusion
http://www.wysebridge.com

114 ZhangNo Gravatar March 7, 2014 at 2:45 pm

Hi Justen,

Thank you for all the very useful information. Wish you good luck in your coming exam. Don’t worry! You will pass it after so much hard study.

Does Patenteducationseries.com have practice questions? How many?

By the way, you don’t need to answer my questions posted in another place. You already talked about that here. Thank you again and appreciate that.

Reply

115 JustenNo Gravatar March 9, 2014 at 4:18 pm

Their site says they have “over 550 current questions.”
But they’re not as tricky as the real exam questions. They just test some principles that they think will be pertinent on the exam. But since the real exam questions are a lot more involved and tricky, I’ve been focusing on old questions posted on this site so I can buy myself some search time for the new questions. So hopefully I get a few repeats.

Reply

116 PaulNo Gravatar March 7, 2014 at 4:58 pm

hi all,

I have an engineering degree, I am in the NY area, can anyone recommend a cheap way to study for the patent bar? any resources?

Thanks

Paul

Reply

117 read mpep and supplementalsNo Gravatar March 7, 2014 at 9:54 pm

do not listen to bfusion and youll do better
study mpep

Reply

118 JustenNo Gravatar March 9, 2014 at 4:31 pm

Paul I used patentedcationseries.com because it’s cheap. It certainly isn’t as well put together as PLI but she condenses all the info that you need into something manageable. And it’s 1/10 the cost of PLI. Wysebridge may be better because Bfusion is so active with this whole process and it has all the repeat questions (like this site does), but it costs a little more. Definitely memorize all the old questions.

Also I definitely would not read the whole MPEP and all the supplementals.

Reply

119 Bfusion.No Gravatar March 9, 2014 at 5:06 pm

Hi All,

Justen: thanks for the comment, and yes, we have a lot of the material condensed down (and more than just the repeats on this site…all of those are on the free section. With a PRO access, you’ll have about 300+ more questions that have been on exams (or written to cover material heavily tested).

Also, we have our frequency charts (which show, by month, which questions have been repeated, and how often). This will help you show even that hey, of the 60+ repeated questions on this site, some haven’t been asked over the past year.

Everyone has their own methods to studying…BUT, it’s my (and wysebridge’s) opinion that reading the MPEP , FR, etc…will consume so much of your time, and you will NOT be prepared to take the exam.

This is exam is part knowledge (you have to understand patent law lingo, understand the layout of the MPEP, and some very essential, key…foundational points) along with knowing HOW to take the exam (how to navigate and search the MPEP, how to prepare for the exam itself, and a lot of other test taking tips and tricks to help you pass).

The MPEP is NOT like a novel that you can just pick up and read. Well, you certainly can do that, but…rather than spend your time wading through 3000+ pages, your time is better spent focusing on the areas that are tested (some chapters haven’t EVER been tested), and starting with summaries and guides to help you conceptualize what the MPEP is. Justen, also agreed: practicing questions (learning how the USPTO asks questions) is a great aid. Just, be careful of trying to pass solely by memorizing questions. Gone are the days of 40-50 repeats on an exam….you need to know factoids to help you process through answers, and then search when need be.

As always, I’m here to help…and we have a lot more to offer and help on wysebridge patent bar review as well.

Best!
~Bfusion
http://www.wysebridge.com

Reply

120 RyanNo Gravatar March 14, 2014 at 7:57 pm

Hi folks,

I’m a bit confused by question 10 from the April 2003 am session.

The exam answer sheet says that a response to a Notice to File Missing Parts is acceptable when filed 7 months from the date of the notice, when accompanied by the appropriate petition and fee -> per 1.136(a) and 710.02(d) last paragraph which notes that a 2-month period to reply to a Notice to File Missing Parts is not identified as a statutory period.

1.136(a) says that whether the period is shortened statutory or nonstatutory, time to reply may be extended to the EARLIER OF maximum period set by statute or five months from the period for reply specified.

I read from the last paragraph of 710.02(d) that the Notice to File Missing Parts reply period (2 months) is nonstatutory, but regardless, 1.136(a) does not seem to provide for a period for reply that extends beyond the statutory 6 months – whether shortened statutory or nonstatutory.

Thanks in advance for any insight.

Ryan

Reply

121 NoanotherNo Gravatar March 15, 2014 at 1:27 am

Ryan,
As one tip to deal with the patent bar exam (not with the real practice of patent prosecution), if you see in the question the reply period is identified as Shortened Statutory Period (SSP), then any reply cannot extend beyond 6 months;
If, however, the question just says that a 2-month or some-month period is set for reply, i.e. not specifically identified as SSP, then it is not SSP, then maximal extension of 5 months is available; famous example, Notice to File Missing Parts, Time period to file Appeal Brief after filing the Notice of Appeal…
I looked all the published questions, and it seems that this rule always applies… let me know if you see any counterexample

Reply

122 RyanNo Gravatar March 15, 2014 at 1:05 pm

Thanks for the response. That seems like a simple rule to follow – thanks.

But the language of 1.136(a) is throwing me off. It seems unambiguous in that it refers to both “nonstatutory” and “shortened statutory” and follows with “any maximum period set by statute.”

1 – Does the “maximum period set by statute” NOT refer to the max 6 months as specified in 35 USC 133?
2 – Do the cases wherein a some-month period for reply is specified NOT qualify as “nonstatutory” periods as referred to in 1.136(a)?

Either I’m reading 1.136(a) incorrectly, or it seems as though there is a third category beyond “nonstatutory” and “shortened statutory” (i.e. Notice to File Missing Parts, Appeal Brief, etc) that somehow circumvents 1.136(a). But then why does the answer to #10 April 2003 a.m. point to 1.136(a) for its reasoning?

Reply

123 NoanotherNo Gravatar March 15, 2014 at 2:47 pm

1.136(a) says: applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply;
Here we have to compare two periods and find out the earlier of:
#1. 6 months from the mailing of office action, but ONLY IF the statue sets maximum period (e.g. 3-month for Notice of allowance, 6-month for most office actions on the merits);
#2. 5 months from the original deadline, no matter whether the statue sets any limit;
So, if the statue DOES NOT set any period (Notice of filing missing parts, appeal brief), we can just skip #1, the 5-month extension applies;
If the statues DOES set a period, then we need to compare which one is earlier: 6-month from mailing, or 5-month after extension;

Now my puzzle is, where is the statutory basis? I mean, why do some notices have SSP and other don’t? I didn’t find specific language in the statues…

Reply

124 RyanNo Gravatar March 17, 2014 at 2:35 pm

35 US 133 says “of which notice has been given,” so I guess that means the Office can pick and choose when periods for reply are subject to the statute.

1.136(a) is written in such a way that it seems even nonstatutory periods for reply are subject to statute, which of course doesn’t make sense. It’s not clear to me why the language uses an “earlier of” clause instead of simply drawing lines, i.e. “Nonstatutory -> 5 months” and “Shortened Statutory -> Max permitted by statute”

125 ZhangNo Gravatar March 18, 2014 at 3:31 am

Hi All,

Just want to see if anybody here has experiences with Category B application and how to certify the degree completed outside the U.S.. I am applying for admission to the bar exam, but got a notice from USPTO, which requested “official course description” and foreign education evaluation.

Thanks and your help would be highly appreciated.

Reply

126 NoanotherNo Gravatar March 18, 2014 at 10:50 am

http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Law/31201693.html
I guess you can probably understand the language used in the above link – hope it helps.
One thing about education evaluation, I used some organization called “Foreign Credit” and it seemed faster (10 days) than that mentioned in the above post.

Reply

127 ZhangNo Gravatar March 18, 2014 at 12:15 pm

Hi Noanother,

Thanks much for your answer. The mitbbs link is very useful. For the degree evaluation organization, you means “Foreign Credits”, right?

Thanks again and appreciate that.

128 ZhangNo Gravatar March 18, 2014 at 12:31 pm

Hi Noanother,

One more question for you. Have you done evaluation only on Bachelor degree or on both Bachelor and Master? Thanks.

129 JillNo Gravatar July 15, 2014 at 3:55 pm

I just did. huge process, but works

Reply

130 NoanotherNo Gravatar March 18, 2014 at 2:34 pm

Zhang, you are right, the organization should be “Foreign Credits”, sorry for the error…
I only evaluated my Bachelor degree, since it is from a foreign country. I don’t have any foreign Master’s degree so your question is not applicable to me… But my guess is, if your master’s degree is foreign, you’d better evaluate it as well – it’s cheaper to evaluate than to argue back and forth with USPTO…

Reply

131 ZhangNo Gravatar March 19, 2014 at 2:31 am

Noanother, thanks a lot for your help.

Reply

132 JillNo Gravatar July 15, 2014 at 3:54 pm

looking for study partners in San Jose area, currently work both on patent bars in both jurisdictions, China and the states

Reply

Leave a Comment