Q) Restriction Appeal (10.03.42a)

April 9, 2010

Recent test takers report question #42 from the October 2003 (a) exam is in the Patent Bar database of tested questions. 42. A registered practitioner filed a first patent application wherein claims 1-10 claims are directed to a widget and claims 11-20 are directed to a method of making a widget. Following a proper restriction requirement, claims […]

14 comments Read the full post →

Q) Dependent Claim (10.03.41a)

April 9, 2010

Test takers report a variation of question #41  from the October 2003 (AM) patent bar exam is in the question database 41. Assume that each claim 5 is in a different patent application. Recommend which, if any, of the following wording is in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP for […]

3 comments Read the full post →

Q) Overcoming a Rejection based on 102(e) (10.03.39a)

April 9, 2010

Test takers report a variation of question #39  from the October 2003 (AM) patent bar exam is in the Prometric database. 39. On May 1, 2001, a complete patent application was filed with the USPTO naming H as the sole inventor. A primary examiner rejected all the claims in the application under 35 USC 102(e) […]

15 comments Read the full post →

Q) Reply to a Second Action Final Rejection (10.03.15a)

April 8, 2010

Recent test takers report question #15  from the October 2003 (am) exam is in the Patent Bar database of tested questions. 15. A utility application filed in May 2001 has been prosecuted through a second action final rejection. In the final rejection some claims were allowed and other claims were finally rejected. Which of the following accords […]

10 comments Read the full post →

Q) Antisense Technology (10.03.14a)

April 8, 2010

Test takers have noted that Question #14 from October 2003 (AM) patent bar exam is in the current exam database. 14. The specification of a patent application contains limited disclosure of using antisense technology in regulating three particular genes in E. coli cells. The specification contains three examples, each applying antisense technology to regulating one of the […]

6 comments Read the full post →

Q) Small Entity Fee (10.03.13)

April 8, 2010

Recent test takers report question #13 from the October 2003 (am) exam is in the Patent Bar database of tested questions. 13. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following fees may not be reduced by 50 percent for “small entities”? (A) The basic filing fee […]

6 comments Read the full post →

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →