Q) Claims (10.00.50p)

September 4, 2008

50. Which of the following is not a USPTO recommendation or requirement? (A) Claims should be arranged in order of scope so that the first claim presented is the least restrictive. (B) Product and process claims should be separately grouped. (C) Every application should contain no more than three dependent claims. (D) A claim which depends […]

2 comments Read the full post →

Q) Mitch and Mac (10.00.23a/4.01.23a)

September 4, 2008

23. Mitch and Mac are named inventors on an international application that is filed in the USPTO Receiving Office, and designates the United States of America. Mac now indicates that he will not sign the Request for the international application. Mitch wishes to proceed with the Request and seeks the advice of their patent agent. […]

17 comments Read the full post →

Q) Prior Art (10.00.16a)

September 4, 2008

16. Which of the following statements regarding a proper prior art reference is true? (A) Canceled matter in the application file of a U.S. patent is a prior art reference as of the filing date under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). (B) Where a patent refers to and relies on the disclosure of a copending subsequently abandoned […]

11 comments Read the full post →

Q) ABC and XYZ Corps. – Appeal (10.00.2a)

September 4, 2008

2. On December 31, 1998, Sam Practitioner files a notice of appeal in a patent application assigned to ABC Corp. after the examiner has rejected all of the claims on prior art. Within two months he sends in his appeal brief and three months after the examiner’s answer is filed the case is sent to […]

11 comments Read the full post →

Q) Reexamination (4.00.47a)

September 4, 2008

47. Which of the following, if any, is true? (A) The loser in an interference in the PTO is estopped from later claiming he or she was the first to invent in a Federal District Court since the loser must win in the PTO or he/she will lose the right to contest priority. (B) A […]

5 comments Read the full post →

Q) Declassified Reference (4.00.34a)

September 4, 2008

34. You have just received an Office action rejecting all of your claims in your patent application as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) using published declassified material as the reference. The examiner explains that the declassified material is being used as prima facie evidence of prior knowledge as of the printing date. The published […]

9 comments Read the full post →

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →