Old Exams
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
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
For Nov. 3, 99 there are no answers for the a.m. session.
Thanks.
Thanks Ivy – the problem has been fixed.
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,
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.
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.
I am planning on proving links to the John White comments/exam tips in the near future – thanks.
There are no questions for Nov 3 1999 p.m. session.
Thank you
can you activate the links for the 1999 exams. i would really appreciate it.
it would allow me to understand the 1999 analysis better.
I have reactivated more of the links. I will finish the rest of the process this week. Thanks, PB
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.
The answers posted for October 2002 pm exam questions are incorrect. Does anyone has the key to the Oct. 2002 pm exam questions?
Caroline-
The answers can be found on the USPTO page at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/oed/oed0210pa.pdf
The answers for October 2002 (pm) have been corrected.
Is there an analysis from White on the other exams? I find his comments make the material seem more straight forward.
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.
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.
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
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
never mind on “Dan March 2, 2009 at 11:25 am” – the answer is in MPEP 710.02(d)
thx!!
The remaining White analyses can be found at the PLI site after signing in.
Do someone know the answer of the question related to clock fan lamp?
Thank you very much
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).
How do I get more modern exams these only go up to 2003. I want the ones from 2004 to 2009 can anyone help?
i don’t think they exist.
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.
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.
Just passed yesterday, thanks for the great site.
Let me know if you need the PLI home course – 600.
tmainzer @ hot mail . com
were there any new Qs from PCT?
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.
Hi patjd,
Congrats on passing the exams!! yes, I am interested in your PRG exam prep..
Please e-mail me at tshapirobarr @ hotmail.com
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
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,
Hi S,
usptoExam.com, one of our sponsors, does this quite well.
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.
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.
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 **.
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.
S,
Once again, this question demonstrated that in patent bar exams, you choose the best answers not the correct answers.
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
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)
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.