Exam Questions

Q) Interference and Reexamination (4.03.12p)

April 8, 2010

Recent test takers report question #12 from the October 2003 (pm) exam is in the Patent Bar database of tested questions. 12. In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following is true? (A) Interferences will generally be declared even when the applications involved are owned […]

13 comments Read the full post →

Q) Prior Art under 35 USC 102(d) (4.03.3p)

April 7, 2010

Recent test takers report question #3 from the October 2003 (pm) exam is in the Patent Bar database of tested questions. 3. In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures in the MPEP, in which of the following instances is the reference properly available as prior art under 35 USC 102(d)? (A) A U.S. […]

19 comments Read the full post →

Q) Inert gas (4.03.30a)

April 7, 2010

Question #30 from the April 2003 (AM) patent bar exam is in the Prometric database. 30. A patent application includes the following Claim 1: Claim 1. A method of making an electrical device comprising the steps of: (i) heating a base made of carbon to a first temperature in the range of 1875°C to 1925°C; […]

18 comments Read the full post →

Q) Late IDS when client knew about PA all along (10.03.34a)

April 5, 2010

Test takers have noted that Question #36 from October 2003 (AM) patent bar exam is in the Prometric database. 34.  A registered practitioner filed a utility application on February 11, 2002. On April 4, 2002, the practitioner filed an information disclosure statement (IDS) in the application. The practitioner received a notice of allowance dated January 3, 2003 […]

6 comments Read the full post →

Q) Allowance after abandonment after appeal (Variation on 10.03.38a)

April 5, 2010

Test takers report a variation of question #38 from the October 2003 (AM) patent bar exam is in the Prometric database. 38. Prosecution before the primary examiner results in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 2 was objected to as being allowable except for its dependency from claim 1. Independent claim 3 has been allowed. The rejection […]

10 comments Read the full post →

Q) 103 Prior Art (10.03.5a)

May 5, 2009

5. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following does not constitute prior art upon which a primary examiner could properly rely upon in making an obviousness rejection under 35 USC 103? (A) A U.S. patent in the applicant’s field of endeavor which was issued […]

4 comments Read the full post →

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →