Exam Questions

Q) Copper substrate (10.03.4a/4.03.16p)

May 5, 2009

4. Claim 1 of an application recites “[a]n article comprising: (a) a copper substrate; and (b) a electrically insulating layer on said substrate.” The specification defines the term “copper” as being elemental copper or copper alloys. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, for purposes of searching and […]

1 comment Read the full post →

Q) Apex and Pinnacle Mfg. Corps. (10.02.47p)

April 28, 2009

(A) Request certified copies of the patent applications as filed. (C) Request certified copies of the patent applications as filed accompanied by the fees set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b)(1)(i). (E) Request certified copies of the assignment documents of record of the patent applications accompanied by the fees set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b)(5). 47. […]

4 comments Read the full post →

Q) Protest (10.02.46p)

April 28, 2009

46. Which of the following statements does not accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure? (B) Information which may be relied on in a protest includes information indicating violation of the duty of disclosure under 37 CFR 1.56. (D) A protest must be submitted prior to the date the application was published or the mailing […]

9 comments Read the full post →

Q) Nylon Rope and Tent Fabric (10.02.43p)

April 28, 2009

(A) cannot support a prima facie case of obviousness because T lacks a suggestion to combine with P for the purpose of preventing breakage in nylon rope. (C) cannot support a prima facie case of obviousness because T only contains a suggestion to combine with P for the purpose of waterproofing nylon rope. (E) can […]

11 comments Read the full post →

Q) Express mail (10.02.34p)

April 28, 2009

(A) The reply will be regarded as timely filed in the USPTO on May 15, 2002. (C) The reply will be regarded as timely filed in the USPTO on May 13, 2002. (E) The reply will be regarded as timely filed in the USPTO if the number of the “Express Mail” mailing label is placed […]

7 comments Read the full post →

Q) Original disclosure (10.02.16p)

April 28, 2009

(A) An amendment to the specification changing the definition of “holder” from “is a hook” to “is a hook, clasp, crimp, or tong” and no amendment is made of the claim, which uses the term “holder.” The amendment is filed one month after the application was filed. There was no previous supporting disclosure in the […]

9 comments Read the full post →

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →