Q) 35 USC 102 (10.03.19a)

August 22, 2008

19. In accordance with patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, a rejection under 35 USC 102 can be overcome by demonstrating: (A) the reference is nonanalogous art. (B) the reference teaches away from the claimed invention. (C) the reference disparages the claimed invention. (D) (A), (B) and (C). (E) None of the […]

Read the full post →

Q) Reissue/Filing Amendment

August 19, 2008

If you had a Certificate of Correction in the parent, and want to file preliminary amendment in a reissue application, what do you do type of question 1411.01 Certificate of Correction or Disclaimer in Original Patent [R-2] The applicant should include any changes, additions, or deletions that were made by a Certificate of Correction to […]

9 comments Read the full post →

Q) Restriction Requirement / Continuation Application

August 19, 2008

One had to do with a Continuation of an application where a restriction requirement had been made, and the applicant had ignored the requirement and filed with all the original claims. 804.01 Prohibition of Double Patenting Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 121 […]Note that a restriction requirement in an earlier-filed application does not carry over to […]

21 comments Read the full post →

Q) 102(a): Need to file foreign language translation

August 19, 2008

One question asks whether you have to file an English translation of a foreign-language reference. § 1.98 Content of information disclosure statement. […] (3)(i) A concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in § 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each patent, publication, or […]

7 comments Read the full post →

Q) Basic Filing Fee

August 19, 2008

One question deals with the basic filing fee. Among the answer options is that the basic filing fee includes up to three independent claims and 20 claims altogether. See MPEP 607 re: excess claims fee

9 comments Read the full post →

Q) Parking Meter (10.03.28p)

August 19, 2008

Recent takers report that question #28 from the October 2003 (PM) test is in the current question database. 28. A patent application is filed disclosing and claiming a system for detecting expired parking meters. The specification fully supports the original, sole claim. The application discloses that the “electronics control unit” contains a comparator and an alarm. The […]

16 comments Read the full post →

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →