Exam Questions

Q) Omitted Items (10.02.34a)

April 28, 2009

(A) If Jane is willing to accept the application as filed, she need not respond to the Notice, and the Office will accord the filing date of the original application. Jane will need to file an amendment renumbering the pages consecutively and canceling incomplete sentences caused by the missing page 5. (C) Jane must promptly […]

23 comments Read the full post →

Q) Third Party Submissions (10.02.46a)

April 28, 2009

(A) A submission of patents by a member of the public must be made within 2 months of the date of publication of the application. (C) A submission of patents by a member of the public must be made within 2 months of the date of publication of the application or prior to the mailing […]

8 comments Read the full post →

Q) Facsimile Transmissions (10.02.49a)

April 28, 2009

(A) Facsimile transmission of a request for reexamination under 37 CFR 1.510 or 1.913. (C) Facsimile transmission of a response to a Notice of Incomplete Nonprovisional Application for the purpose of obtaining an application filing date. (E) Facsimile transmission of a continued prosecution application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) and an authorization to charge the basic […]

19 comments Read the full post →

Q) Reissue (10.02.50a)

April 27, 2009

 50. If a reissue application is filed within two years of the original patent grant, the applicant may subsequently broaden the claims during prosecution of the pending reissue prosecution beyond the two year limit, ________________________________. (A) if the applicant indicates in the oath accompanying the reissue application that the claims will be broadened. (B) if […]

1 comment Read the full post →

Q) Hydrocyclone

September 4, 2008

Hydrocyclone separator apparatus repeat question, where the answer is Claim 5. A method of separating material including fibers suspended in a liquid suspension comprising the steps of separating the material into a light fraction containing the fibers and a heavy fraction containing rejects, and converting the light fraction into a pulp and paper stock suspension.

4 comments Read the full post →

Q) Obviousness

September 4, 2008

Can an examiner make an obviousness rejection where prior art cites chemical amounts of 34.9% and the applicant’s range starts at 35%? MPEP 2144.05 “A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have […]

20 comments Read the full post →

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →