The fact pattern didn’t clue me in to those points. It was the answer choices. For example, the re-exam question had answer choices that went something like this: “Which is correct according to the MPEP and rules and procedures…? (A) Requestor should file a re-exam request no later than Sept. 16, 2011 w/ enough evidence to support a substantial question of patentability; (B) Requestor should file a re-exam request no later than Sept. 16, 2012 w/ enough evidence to support a substantial question of patentability…”

Basically, the answer choices combined the substantial new question of patentability + likelihood of success standard + AIA effective date in various ways and required you to know what the correct standard was at what time.

The second to last word on this paragraph should be “re-exam” not appeal. Corrected version:

1. Inter Parte Re-exam Question
- There was a question about a 3rd party who wanted to file a request for an inter-parte re-exam. The answer required you to know that the new inter parte re-exam rules from the AIA only apply to requests filed on/after Sept. 16, 2011 but before Sept. 16, 2012, and that the new standard for these requests is “whether the requestor has established enough to suggest a likelihood that the requestor will win the re-exam for at least one claim.” Also, remember that the old “substantial new question of patentability” still applies for ex-parte re-exam requests.

I couldn’t have done it without this website. Here is my exam strategy–hope this helps someone:

- Did the entire PLI course (took the exam the first time after that…didn’t pass. Hmm.)
- Found this website. For the next 6 weeks this is all I did:

1. Read all the comments about how important it was to study the repeat questions. Best. Advice. Ever.
2. Look at Mambo5’s comment on the “Study Guide” portion of this website where he compiles all the repeat questions together. I copied and pasted these into a word document and worked my way through every single one.
3. Read all the user comments after each question!
4. Read 2100 3x (just pretend it’s a good novel!). Read 1200 3x. Read 1800.
5. Memorized the headings, sub-headings, and sub sub-headings of 700. That made it SO much easier to quickly find a lot of information.
6. Went over the repeat questions from this site 3 more times, each time understanding the rationale for all right and wrong answers.
7. Read the new rules on ex parte appeals, re-exams, and Track I.

Day before the exam: I read the repeat questions again (see a pattern here?), and skimmed 2100 and 1200.

Day of the exam: Some people above say they went through the test by first answering the repeats and then going back for the look-up questions. But I like to answer every question as it comes along w/o having to go back. I looked up everything (except the repeats), just to be sure. There were a LOT of repeats.

Hope this helps someone. Don’t be discouraged if you don’t pass your first time. A lot of us here didn’t. Just be sure to GO OVER THESE REPEATS. Each repeat I saw on the exam felt like a gift from my past self. I will post on this site about each repeat question individually if I saw it appear on the exam. It’s the least I can do.

New AIA materials:

1. Inter Parte Re-exam Question
- There was a question about a 3rd party who wanted to file a request for an inter-parte re-exam. The answer required you to know that the new inter parte re-exam rules from the AIA only apply to requests filed on/after Sept. 16, 2011 but before Sept. 16, 2012, and that the new standard for these requests is “whether the requestor has established enough to suggest a likelihood that the requestor will win the re-exam for at least one claim.” Also, remember that the old “substantial new question of patentability” still applies for ex-parte appeal requests.

2. New Ex Parte Appeal Rules:
One question basically required you to know that these rules only apply to appeals filed on/after Jan. 23, 2012

3. Bilski
One question asked how an applicant w/ a business method invention could argue using the Bilski holding that his invention was patentable. I believe the correct answer was to somehow attach the claims in the app to a machine or device so that it’s an application of an abstract idea.

4. KSR
In one question, the examiner makes an obviousness rejection based on the TSM test. The question was how the applicant should respond using KSR holdings. The correct thing for the applicant to do was prove (w/ evidence…always w/ evidence!) that the examiner relied too strictly on the TSM test and other factors proved non-obviousness.

Good luck! (Seriously, though, go over the repeat questions)

More repeats:

Trade secret in envelope
India Outsource
Indefinite High
Sweden PCT
Death of inventors after filing

I got about 3-5 questions on Bilski and KSR.
I remember getting an ‘obvious to try’ question, an obviousness question, and a business method question. They were not hard, though.

The repeats I can remember are:
Moondust
Parking meter
900 dependent claims
Piecemeal
Broom
Foil Airplane
Electric fan

lots of PCT questions
lots of appeal questions. — lots of obscure sections of MPEP 1200 were tested
lots of obscure questions in MPEP 1800 were tested
lots of obscure questions in MPEP 600 were tested

My advice. Practice, practice, practice. Don’t pick an answer if you are unsure about it.

I had to look up around 13 questions in my am session. There were lots of questions I had not seen, and they were hidden (almost invisible) in the MPEP. I used a combination of keyword/table of contents to search. I eliminated the wrong answers.

During my afternoon session, I had to look up around 17/18 questions. I had time to look them up because I had lots of repeats and had practiced so much that I was able to answer about 34 questions in about 1hr 15 mins. I used the remainder of the time to look up 17 questions, and made sure I got all of them right (at least I thought so).

Don’t panic. Also, don’t over rely on repeat questions to pass. Use the repeat questions as a tool to answer them quickly on exam day so that you can have more time to search the MPEP.

Also, if you have the time, read MPEP 2100, as reading it will help you understand some minutiae, which will help you pick the right answer in those confusing questions. I would not have passed had I not read MPEP 2100. It may seem like a lot of work, but it is worth it.