Q) Obviousness (4.00.32a)

September 4, 2008

32. Nonobviousness of a claimed invention may be demonstrated by: (A) producing evidence that all the beneficial results are expected based on the teachings of the prior art references. (B) producing evidence of the absence of a property the claimed invention would be expected to possess based on the teachings of the prior art. (C) […]

1 comment Read the full post →

Q) Laurel, Abbot and Hardy (4.00.14a)

September 4, 2008

14. On August 7, 1997, practitioner Costello filed a patent application identifying Laurel, Abbot, and Hardy as inventors. Each named inventor assigned his patent rights to Burns just prior to the application being filed. Laurel and Abbot, alone, jointly invented the subject matter of independent claim 1 in the application. Hardy contributed to inventing the […]

20 comments Read the full post →

Q) Restriction (4.00.9a)

September 4, 2008

9. A non-final Office action contains, among other things, a restriction requirement between two groups of claims, (Group 1 and Group 2). Which of the following, if included in a timely reply under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111, preserves applicant’s right to petition the Commissioner to review the restriction requirement? I. Applicant’s entire reply to the […]

7 comments Read the full post →

Q) Product by Process (4.00.6a)

September 4, 2008

Test takers have reported questions #6 from the April 2000 (AM) patent bar exam in the current question database. 6. Which of the following statements is true regarding a product-by-process claim? (A) Product-by-process claims cannot vary in scope from each other. (B) Product-by-process claims may only be used in chemical cases. (C) A lesser burden […]

3 comments Read the full post →

Q) Exam Concepts – Appeals

September 2, 2008

Appeals 1) Definitely know that dependent claims objected for their dependency on a rejected independent claim will be treated as if rejected if appeal doesn’t overcome the independent claim’s rejection (this includes withdrawal of the appeal).  The application IS NOT abandoned/allowed right away, but rather goes back to the examiner’s jurisdiction, whereupon he’ll either allow […]

5 comments Read the full post →

Q) PTO-892

September 2, 2008
25 comments Read the full post →

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →