Q) Reply to non-final rejection (10.03.21p)

April 13, 2010

Recent test takers report that question #21 from the October 2003 (PM) test is in the patent bar exam database. 21. Which of the following would comply with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP and would be a fully responsive reply to a non-final Office action on the merits rejecting […]

2 comments Read the full post →

Q) 102 Rejections (10.03.20p)

April 13, 2010

Recent test takers report that question #20 from the October 2003 (PM) test is in the patent bar exam database. 20. Recommend which of the following rejections under 35 USC 102 in a reexamination proceeding is in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP. (A) A rejection under 35 USC […]

2 comments Read the full post →

Q) Correcting the Name of the Inventor (10.03.18p)

April 13, 2010

Recent test takers report that question #18 from the October 2003 (PM) test is in the patent bar exam database. 18. A registered practitioner filed a design patent application on December 30, 2003. The application was filed with an inventor-executed declaration naming Jon Jones as the sole inventor, who has not assigned the invention and is not […]

13 comments Read the full post →

Q) Prior Art Reference (10.03.19p)

April 13, 2010

Recent test takers report that question #19 from the October 2003 (PM) test is in the patent bar exam database. 19. The claims in an application are rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious over prior art reference A in view of prior art reference B. All of the following statements are in accord with the patent […]

1 comment Read the full post →

Q) Anticipated under 102(e) (10.03.17p)

April 13, 2010

Recent test takers report that question #17 from the October 2003 (PM) test is in the patent bar exam database. 17. A patent application was filed on November 1, 2000 for the invention of J.J. Smithy. The application has no priority or benefit claims to any other application. Claims in the application are separately rejected under 35 […]

Read the full post →

Q) 103 Obviousness (10.03.16p)

April 13, 2010

Recent test takers report that question #16 from the October 2003 (PM) test is in the patent bar exam database. 16. Which of the following statements is or are in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP? (1) In a 35 USC 103 obviousness analysis, the proper question is whether […]

12 comments Read the full post →

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →