Q) Double Patenting (10.02.8a)

August 22, 2008

8. The MPEP and USPTO rules and procedure provide for ways that a nonstatutory double patenting rejection can be overcome. Which of the following is an effective way to overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection? (A) Filing a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit to swear behind the patent on which the rejection is based. (B) Filing […]

7 comments Read the full post →

Q) 37 CFR 1.131 (10.02.6a)

August 22, 2008

6. According to USPTO rules and procedure, which of the following can be overcome by an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131? (A) A rejection properly based on statutory double patenting. (B) A rejection properly made under 35 USC 102(d) based on a foreign patent granted in a non-WTO country. (C) A rejection properly made under […]

3 comments Read the full post →

Q) Lack of Possession 112 (10.02.2a)

August 22, 2008

2. To satisfy the written description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 USC 112, an applicant must show possession of the invention. An applicant’s lack of possession of the invention may be evidenced by: (A) Describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. (B) Describing the claimed invention with all of its […]

4 comments Read the full post →

Q) Non-signing Inventor (10.02.1a)

August 22, 2008

1. In accordance with the MPEP and USPTO rules and procedure, an application for patent may be made on behalf of a joint inventor in certain situations. Who, by petition, may make application on behalf of a joint inventor who has refused to sign the application (“nonsigning inventor”), if the other joint inventor (“signing inventor”) […]

17 comments Read the full post →

Q) Smith and Jones (4.02.38p)

August 22, 2008

38. Which of the following can correct the inventorship of a patent application in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure? (A) An unexecuted nonprovisional application was filed January 3, 2001 naming Jones and Smith as inventors. Smith was named an inventor in error. A Notice to File Missing Parts of Application was mailed by […]

10 comments Read the full post →

Q) New Matter (4.02.24p)

August 22, 2008

24. In 1995 Patent Agent filed a U.S. patent application containing five claims (Application 1). All five claims are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. § 112 by the disclosure of Application 1. In 2000, Patent Agent filed a U.S. patent application (Application 2) that was a continuation- in-part of Application 1. Application 2 adds new […]

3 comments Read the full post →

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →