Question 1

A claim in a pending patent application stands rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being obvious over Kim in view of Lance. The Kim and Lance references are both U.S. Patents issued on respective applications filed before the date of the application in question. In the rejection, the primary examiner asserted that no determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art was necessary because the subject matter of the application and of Kim and Lance were so easily understandable; and that the Kim reference relates to the applicant's endeavor. The examiner properly found motive in Kim and Lance for combining the references, but the motive would produce a benefit different from that offered by applicant's invention. Neither reference teaches or suggests the ambiguous limitation. In the rejection under 36 USC 103(a), the examiner did not address an ambiguous limitation in the claim. However, the examiner separately rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph as indefinite due to the ambiguity. According to the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following arguments, if true, would overcome the rejection?

Accepted Answer

CREDIT GIVEN FOR ALL ANSWERS.

Question 2

Claim 1 of an application recites "[a]n article comprising: (a) a copper substrate; and (b) a electrically insulating layer on said substrate." The specification defines the term "copper" as being elemental copper or copper alloys. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, for purposes of searching and examining the claim, the examiner should interpret the term "copper" in the claim as reading on:

Accepted Answer

When the specification expressly provides a special definition for a term used in the claims, the term must be given that special meaning. See MPEP § 2111.01. (A) is incorrect because a term is given its plain meaning only when the specification does not provide a definition for the term. Id. (B) is incorrect because the specification defines the term as being inclusive of elemental copper. See MPEP § 2111.01. (D) is incorrect because it does not take into account the definition of copper found in the specification. See MPEP § 2111.01.

Question 3

In a reexamination proceeding a non-final Office action dated November 8, 2001 set a shortened statutory period of 2 months to reply. The patent owner, represented by a registered practitioner, filed a response on March 7, 2002, which included an amendment of the claims. No request for an extension of time was received. As of May 8, 2002, which of the following actions would be in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?

Accepted Answer

37 CFR § 1.137; and MPEP § 2268. The patent owner will need to file a petition for entry of late papers in order to have their response entered, considered and acted upon. According to MPEP 2268, "[p]ursuant to 37 CFR 1.550(d), an ex parte reexamination proceeding is terminated if the patent owner fails to file a timely and appropriate response to any Office . . . An ex parte reexamination proceeding terminated under 37 CFR 1.550(d) can be revived if the delay in response by the patent . . . was unavoidable in accordance with 37 CFR 1.137(a), or unintentional in accordance with 37 CFR 1.137(b)." (A) is not the most correct answer. In a reexamination proceeding, requests for extensions of time must be filed on or before the day on which action by the patent owner is due pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.550(c). See MPEP § 2265. (C) is incorrect. (C) is inconsistent with MPEP § 2266, which states that if the patent owner fails to file a timely response to any Office action, the reexamination proceeding will be terminated, and after the proceeding is terminated, the Commissioner will proceed to issue a reexamination certificate. There is no provision for issuing a notice of allowance in a reexamination proceeding. Further, (C) is incorrect inasmuch as the examiner should not mail a Notice of Allowance and grant a new patent. (D) is not the most correct answer. In a reexamination proceeding where patent owner fails to file a timely and appropriate response to any Office action, the reexamination proceeding will be terminated via issuance of the Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate. See MPEP § 2266. (E) is not the most correct answer. In a reexamination proceeding, requests for extensions of time must be filed on or before the day on which action by the patent owner is due pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c).

Question 4

35 USC 102(d) establishes four conditions which, if all are present, establish a bar against the granting of a patent in this country. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following is not one of the four conditions established by 35 USC 102(d)?

Accepted Answer

As set forth in MPEP § 2135, under the heading "General Requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102(d)," states "(C) The foreign patent or inventor's certificate must be actually granted (e.g., by sealing of the papers in Great Britain) before the U.S. filing date. It need not be published." Answer (A) is incorrect because it is one of the four conditions established by 35 U.S.C. § 102(d). MPEP § 2135, under the heading "General Requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102(d)," states "(A) The foreign application must be filed more than 12 months before the effective U.S. filing date…." Answer (B) is incorrect because it is one of the four conditions established by 35 U.S.C. § 102(d). MPEP § 2135, under the heading "General Requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102(d)," states "(B) The foreign application must have been filed by the same applicant as in the United States or by his or her legal representatives or assigns." Answer (C) is incorrect because it is one of the four conditions established by 35 U.S.C. § 102(d). MPEP § 2135, under the heading "General Requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102(d)," states "(C) The foreign patent or inventor's certificate must be actually granted (e.g., by sealing of the papers in Great Britain) before the U.S. filing date. It need not be published." Answer (E) is incorrect because it is one of the four conditions established by 35 U.S.C. § 102(d). MPEP § 2135, under the heading "General Requirement of 35 U.S.C. 102(d)" states "(D) The same invention must be involved." See also MPEP § 2135.01(IV).

Question 5

In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, definiteness of claim language under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but in light of:

Accepted Answer

As set forth in MPEP § 2173.02, "[d]efiniteness of claim language must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but in light of: (A) The content of the particular application disclosure; (B) The teachings of the prior art; and (C) The claim interpretation that would be given by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art at the time the invention was made." Answers (A), (B) and (C) each identify criteria to be analyzed in considering whether claim language is definite, therefore answer (E) which includes each of these answers is the most correct answer. Answer (D) is incorrect since it does not include criteria (C).

Question 6

Inventors B and C are employed by Corporation D, which authorized registered practitioner E to prepare and file a patent application claiming subject matter invented by B and C. Inventor B signed the oath, an assignment to Corporation D, and a power of attorney authorizing practitioner E to prosecute the application. Inventor C refused to sign the oath and any assignment documents for the application. The employment contract between inventor C and Corporation D contains no language obligating C to assign any invention to Corporation D. A patent application was properly filed in the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.47 naming B and C as inventors, but without inventor C signing the oath. C has now started his own company competing with Corporation D producing a product with the invention in the application. Inventor B is a friend of inventor C and wants C to have continued access to the application. Which of the following statements is in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?

Accepted Answer

MPEP § 106 states "[t]he assignee of record of the entire interest in an application may intervene in the prosecution of the application, appointing an attorney or agent of his or her own choice. See 37 CFR § 3.71. Such intervention, however, does not exclude the applicant from access to the application to see that it is being prosecuted properly, unless the assignee makes specific request to that effect." (A), (B), (D), and (E) are incorrect. MPEP § 409.03(i) is directly contrary to answer (A), and provides that a nonsigning inventor cannot revoke or give a power of attorney without agreement of all named inventors or the 37 CFR § 1.47(b) applicant. (B) is incorrect. MPEP § 106 does not empower an inventor who has assigned his or her rights to exclude a non-signing joint inventor from accessing an application in which the latter party is named as a joint inventor. (E) is incorrect. MPEP § 106. Corporation D, as an assignee of a part interest, cannot exclude the non-signing joint inventor from access to the application. See also, MPEP § 106.01, which states "While it is only the assignee of record of the entire interest who can intervene in the prosecution of an application or interference to the exclusion of the applicant, an assignee of a part interest or a licensee of exclusive right is entitled to inspect the application." (D) is incorrect because MPEP § 409.03(i) states that a nonsigning inventor is entitled to inspect any papers in the application, and order copies at the price set forth in 37 C FR § 1.19.

Question 7

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 three particular genes in E. coli cells. Despite the limited disclosure, the specification states that the "the practices of this invention are generally applicable with respect to any organism containing genetic material capable of being expressed such as bacteria, yeast, and other cellular organisms." All of the original claims in the application are broadly directed to the application of antisense technology to any cell. No claim is directed to applying antisense technology to regulating any of the three particular genes in E. coli cells. The claims are rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, for lack of enablement. In support of the rejection, a publication is cited that correctly notes antisense technology is highly unpredictable, requiring experimentation to ascertain whether the technology works in each type of cell. The publication cites the inventor's own articles (published after the application was filed) that include examples of the inventor's own failures to control the expressions of other genes in E. coli and other types of cells. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, the rejection is:

Accepted Answer

35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph; MPEP §§ 2164.01 and 2164.06(b). MPEP § 2164.01 states "[t]he standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands , 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, even though the statute does not use the term 'undue experimentation,' it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation." See also the discussion of Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 52 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1999) in MPEP § 2164.06(b). (B) is incorrect. MPEP § 2107.01, under the heading "III. Therapeutic Or Pharmacological Utility," states "[t]he Federal Circuit has reiterated that therapeutic utility sufficient under the patent laws is not to be confused with the requirements of the FDA with regard to safety and efficacy of drugs to marketed in the United States. . . In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Accordingly, Office personnel should not construe 35 U.S.C. 101, under the logic of 'practical' utility or otherwise, to require that an applicant demonstrate that a therapeutic agent based on a claimed invention is a safe or fully effective drug for humans." (C) is incorrect. 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph; MPEP § 2107.02. MPEP § 2107.02, under the heading "When Is An Asserted Utility Not Credible," states "Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been rarely sustained by federal courts. Generally speaking, in these rare cases, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection was sustained . . . because . . .[applicant] asserted a utility that . . . was wholly inconsistent with contemporary knowledge in the art. In re Gazave, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967)." The disclosure in (C) is inconsistent with published information. (D) is incorrect. MPEP § 2107.01 under the heading "Relationship Between 35 U.S.C. 112, First Paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101," quotes In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200- 1201, 26 USPQ2d 1600, 1603 (Fed. Cir. 1993) as stating "The how to use prong of section 112 incorporates as a matter of law the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101 that the specification disclose as a matter of fact a practical utility for the invention. ... If the application fails as a matter of fact to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 101, then the application also fails as a matter of law to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to use the invention under 35 U.S.C. § 112." Enablement for the claims in a utility application is found in the specification preceding the claims, as opposed to being in the claims. The claims do not provide their own enablement. 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. (E) is incorrect. MPEP 2107.01 states that the examiner "must treat as true a statement of fact made by an applicant in relation to an asserted utility, unless countervailing evidence can be provided that shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a legitimate basis to doubt the credibility of such a statement." Inasmuch as countervailing evidence has been produced, the lack of necessity to theorize or explain the failures does not alleviate the inventor from complying with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph to provide an enabling disclosure that is commensurate in scope with the claims.

Question 8

Tribell files a patent application for her aroma therapy kit on November 29, 1999, which issues as a patent on August 7, 2001. She tries to market her kit but all of her prospects are concerned that her patent claims are not sufficiently broad. On September 5, 2001, Tribell asks a registered practitioner for advice on what to do to improve her ability to market her aroma therapy kit. At the consultation the practitioner learns that in the original patent application, Tribell had a number of claims which were subjected to a restriction requirement, but were nonelected and withdrawn from further consideration. The practitioner also determines that the claims in the patent obtained by Tribell were narrower than the broader invention disclosed in the specification, and the cited references may not preclude patentability of the broader invention. Which of the following is the best course of action to pursue in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?

Accepted Answer

35 U.S.C. § 251, MPEP § 1402 (fifth paragraph). MPEP § 1402 states that one of the "most common bases for filing a reissue application [is] (A) the claims are too narrow or too broad." The claims may be broadened in a reissue application filed by the inventor within two years from the patent issue date. (B) is incorrect since the 4th paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 251 states that no reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the clams of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent. (C) and (E) are incorrect. MPEP § 1402, sixteenth paragraph. An applicant's failure to timely file a divisional application while the original application is still pending is not considered to be an error correctable via reissue. See In re Orita, 550 F.2d 1277, 1280, 193 USPQ 145, 148 (CCPA 1977). (D) is incorrect. MPEP § 201.06. In order to claim benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to a parent application, a divisional application must be filed while the parent patent application is still pending.

Question 9

In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following statements regarding operability or enablement of a prior art reference is the most correct?

Accepted Answer

MPEP § 2121, under the heading "What Constitutes An 'Enabling Disclosure' Does Not Depend On The Type Of Prior Art The Disclosure Is Contained In," states, in reliance upon In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 711, 129 USPQ 227, 230 (CCPA 1961): "The level of disclosure required within a reference to make it an 'enabling disclosure' is the same no matter what type of prior art is at issue.... There is no basis in the statute (35 U.S.C. 102 or 103) for discriminating either in favor of or against prior art references on the basis of nationality." Answer (B) is incorrect. MPEP § 2121, under the heading "Prior Art Is Presumed To Be Operable/Enabling," states that "[w]hen the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable." Answer (C) is incorrect. MPEP § 2121.01, under the heading "35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections And Use Of Inoperative Prior Art," quotes Symbol Technologies Inc. v. Opticon Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578, 19 USPQ2d 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 1991) as stating that "a non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purpose of determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103." Answer (D) is incorrect. MPEP § 2121.01 states that "[a] reference contains an 'enabling disclosure' if the public was in possession of the claimed invention before the date of invention." Answer (E) is incorrect because answers (B), (C) and (D) are incorrect.

Question 10

On January 3, 2003, a registered practitioner filed a continuation application that includes a benefit claim to a prior-filed application. The practitioner simultaneously filed in the priorfiled application an express abandonment in favor of a continuing application. The prior application contained five drawing figures described in the specification. However, the continuation application contains only four of the five drawing figures. The specification of the continuation application did not include a complete description of the missing drawing figure. A postcard from the USPTO, listing the contents of the continuation application, contains a note that only four drawing figures were received. The practitioner inadvertently omitted one of the drawing figures mentioned in the specification when he filed the continuation application. The missing drawing figure shows a claimed feature of the invention. On February 10, 2003, the practitioner received a Notice of Omitted Item(s) properly according a filing date of January 3, 2003 for the continuation application without the missing drawing figure and notifying the applicant that the drawing is missing. Which of the following procedures for filing the missing drawing would comply with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP for according the continuation application a January 3, 2003 filing date with the five drawing figures that were present in the application?

Accepted Answer

MPEP § 201.06(c), under the heading "INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE", subheading "B. Application Entitled to a Filing Date," states that "[i]f the application as originally filed includes a proper incorporation by reference of the prior application(s), an omitted specification page(s) and/or drawing figure(s) identified in a "Notice of Omitted Item(s)" may be added by amendment provided the omitted item(s) contains only subject matter in common with such prior application(s). In such case applicant need not respond to the "Notice of Omitted Item(s)." Applicant should submit the amendment adding the omitted material prior to the first Office action to avoid delays in the prosecution of the application." (A) and (B) are incorrect because the application filing date will be the date of the filing of the missing drawing figure. See MPEP § 601.01(g). Furthermore, a priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 120 in a continuation or divisional application does not amount to an incorporation by reference of the application to which priority is claimed. See MPEP § 201.06(c). (C) is incorrect. The continuation application will not be accorded with a filing date of January 3, 2003 with the missing drawing figure. (E) is incorrect because a petition under 37 CFR § 1.53(e) will not be granted if the missing drawing figure is inadvertently omitted by the applicant and not in fact deposited with the USPTO with the application papers.

Question 11

Application Number A was published as U.S. Patent Application Publication Number B. A member of the public reviewed the listing of the file contents of the application on the Patent Application Information Retrieval system and determined that the application was still pending, that a final Office action was mailed, and that the application file is in the Technology Center where it is being examined. The member of the public does not have a power to inspect, but would like a copy of the final Office action as well as the other papers in the patent application. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, can a copy of these papers be obtained by the member of the public, and if so, how can the copy be obtained?

Accepted Answer

MPEP § 103, under the heading "Published U.S. Patent Applications" states that "If a patent application has been published pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b), then a copy of the specification, drawings, and all papers relating to the file of that published application (whether abandoned or pending) may be provided to any person upon written request and payment of the fee." (A), and (B) are not correct. 37 CFR § 1.14(c)(2). Once an application has been published, a copy is available to the public upon written request and payment of a fee. (C) and (D) are not correct. As stated in MPEP § 103, under the heading "Published U.S. Patent Applications," if the published patent application is pending, the application file itself will not be available to the public for inspection."

Question 12

A registered practitioner filed an application for an applicant claiming a "a means for pulling the door open." The specification describes a handle and a knob as being used together as a corresponding structure for pulling the door open. A prior art patent discloses a door opened by pulling on an attached bar. The primary examiner issued an Office action rejecting the claim under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated. In the action, the examiner properly identified the corresponding structure described in applicant's specification as the means for pulling the door open, and properly explained why the prior art attached bar is the equivalent of the structure described in applicant's specification. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following is the most correct reply to overcome the rejection under these circumstances?

Accepted Answer

MPEP § 2181 under the heading "Procedures For Determining Whether The Written Description Adequately Describes The Corresponding Structure, Material, Or Acts Necessary To Support A Claim Limitation Which Invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph." 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph states that a claim limitation expressed in means plus function language "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts described in the specification and 'equivalents thereof.'" See also B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Lab., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 1997)." The examiner has made a prima facie case of equivalent in the Office action to support the rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 102. By amending the claim to no longer include the means limitation in question, the claim becomes narrower inasmuch as it no longer includes equivalents under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6 for examination purposes. Thus, (D) overcomes the lack of novelty rejection under these circumstances. (A) is not the most correct answer because such an amended claim would continue to lack novelty, since both it and the prior art would have the attached bar expressly. Furthermore, such an amendment would introduce new matter lacking support in the application as originally filed. 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. (B) is not the most correct answer because the "not found in the prior art" argument does not rebut the prima facie case of equivalents raised by the examiner. (C) is not the most correct answer because it does not address the rejection. (E) is not the most correct answer because the amendment would raise a new matter issue.

Question 13

When, in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, is a supplemental oath or declaration treated as an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312?

Accepted Answer

MPEP § 714.16, third paragraph, states "a supplemental reissue oath or declaration is treated as an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312 because the correction of the patent which it provides is an amendment of the patent, even though no amendment is physically entered into the specification or claim(s)." Answer (A) is incorrect because a supplemental oath or declaration is not treated as an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312 except when submitted in a reissue. See MPEP § 603.01. Answer (B) is incorrect because a supplemental oath or declaration in a reissue will be treated as an amendment under 37 CFR § 1.312 only if filed after allowance. Answer (C) is incorrect because amendments filed after the date the issue fee has been paid are no longer permitted under 37 CFR § 1.312. (E) is wrong because (A) is correct.

Question 14

A registered practitioner files a patent application with the following claim: 1. A plastic insert for the bottom of a shopping cart comprising circular receptacles to receive wine bottles and to maintain them in an upright and stable position even while the shopping cart is moved about a store so that they do not fall and break. Patent A discloses a plastic insert for the bottom of a shopping cart comprising rectangular receptacles to receive cereal boxes and to maintain them in an upright and stable position even while the shopping cart is moved about a store in order to keep them organized in the cart. Patent A also discloses that the receptacles could be any circular diameter to receive complementary shaped bottles or jars such as to securely hold 2-liter soft drink bottles or mayonnaise jars. A primary examiner rejected the claim as being obvious under 35 USC 103 over Patent A reasoning that Patent A suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art an insert for a shopping cart with circular receptacles for the purpose of stably maintaining any bottle, including wine bottles, while pushing the cart about a store so that the cart remains organized. Assume the examiner has made a sufficient prima facie case of obviousness. Following receipt of the rejection, the practitioner filed a timely reply. The practitioner argued that Patent A does not render obvious the claimed subject matter because there is no suggestion of a plastic insert to keep a wine bottle from falling and breaking in a shopping cart. Which of the following best explains why, in accordance with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP, the examiner should or should not be persuaded by the practitioner's argument?

Accepted Answer

MPEP § 2144, under the heading "Rationale Different From Applicant's Is Permissible." Patent A suggests an insert with receptacles that are circular and which can be shaped to complement the shape of the object to be received. The purpose for this in Patent A is to keep the cart organized, not as in the claim to prevent the object from falling and breaking. The difference in objectives does not defeat the case for obviousness because, as MPEP § 2144 states, the "reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) …; In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) … ." In other words, it does not matter that Patent A does not appreciate the claimed purpose of preventing breakage. It suggests an insert with receptacles to hold bottles. That is enough to render the claimed subject matter prima facie obvious. The prima facie case is not rebutted by arguing that the purpose for the claimed insert is different form that specified for the insert described in Patent A. That is why answer (C) is wrong. To rebut the prima facie case, the practitioner must show a difference in structure instead. Answer (B) is wrong because the prima facie case is not rebutted by showing that Patent A does not teach wine bottles. This is not an anticipation rejection where identity of subject matter might be an issue. This is a question of obviousness. Therefore, it is sufficient to point out that Patent A is a generic teaching of shopping cart inserts that hold objects of any size and shape. (D) is not the most correct answer because what Patent A is interested in doing is irrelevant to the question of obviousness. (E) is not the most correct answer inasmuch as it was not the practitioner's argument. However, the question inquires about the merits of the argument that the practitioner made as set forth in the penultimate sentence of the question, not the merits of some hypothetical reply the examiner may communicate.

Question 15

A registered practitioner receives an Office action for Application X, a patent application filed after November 29, 1999. The action contains a rejection of all the claims as being obvious under 35 USC 103(a) over Patent A in view of Patent B. Patent A is only available as prior art under 35 USC 102(e). Patent B is available under 35 USC 102(b). The practitioner seeks to disqualify Patent A as prior art under 35 USC 103(c). Which of the following would be sufficient evidence to disqualify Patent A as prior art in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?

Accepted Answer

As to (B) and (D), see MPEP § 706.02(l)(2), under the heading "II. Evidence Required To Establish Common Ownership." (B) is accepted because applicants, e.g., inventors, have the best knowledge of the ownership of their applications, and because their statement of such is sufficient evidence because of their paramount obligation of candor and good faith to the USPTO. (D) reproduces the example set forth under the foregoing heading. (A) is incorrect because applicants or the representatives of record have the best knowledge of the ownership of their applications, and because their statement of such is sufficient evidence because of their paramount obligation of candor and good faith to the USPTO. (C) is incorrect because the statement does not establish common ownership at the time the later invention was made. 35 U.S.C. § 103(c). (E) is incorrect because it does not establish that the prior art invention and the claimed invention are entirely or wholly owned by the same person. MPEP § 706.02(l)(2).

Question 16

With respect to the examiner's burden in making an enablement rejection under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, which of the following statements is or are in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
(1) The examiner may properly make an enablement rejection before construing the claims.
(2) The examiner has the initial burden to establish a reasonable basis to question the enablement provided for the claimed invention.
(3) The examiner need not give reasons for the uncertainty of the enablement when there is no evidence of operability beyond the disclosed embodiments.

Accepted Answer

The examiner has the initial burden to establish a reasonable basis to question the enablement provided. MPEP § 2164.04 states "[i]n order to make a rejection, the examiner has the initial burden to establish a reasonable basis to question the enablement provided for the claimed invention. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (examiner must provide a reasonable explanation as to why the scope of protection provided by a claim is not adequately enabled by the disclosure)." Answer (A) is incorrect, because statement (1) is not true. The examiner may not analyze enablement before construing the claims. MPEP § 2164.04. Answer (C) is incorrect, because statement (3) is not true. The examiner must give reasons for the uncertainty of the enablement, even when there is no evidence of operability without undue experimentation other than the disclosed embodiments. In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1566, 34 USPQ2d 1436, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 1995). MPEP § 2164.04 states "[a]ccording to In re Bowen, 492 F.2d 859, 862-63, 181 USPQ 48, 51 (CCPA 1974), the minimal requirement is for the examiner to give reasons for the uncertainty of the enablement." Answer (D) is incorrect because it includes false statement (1). Answer (E) is incorrect because it includes false statements (1) and (3).

Question 17

A registered practitioner filed a utility application on February 11, 2002. On April 4, 2002, the practitioner filed an information disclosure statement (IDS) in the application. The practitioner received a notice of allowance dated January 3, 2003 soon after it was mailed. When discussing the application with the practitioner on January 21, 2003, and before paying the issue fee, the client notices for the first time that a reference, which is one of many patents obtained by the client's competitor, was inadvertently omitted from the IDS. The client has been aware of this reference since before the application was filed. The client is anxious to have this reference appear on the face of the patent as having been considered by the USPTO. Which of the following actions, if taken by the practitioner, would not be in accord with the patent law, rules and procedures as related by the MPEP?

Accepted Answer

Describing a procedure that is not in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP , the most correct answer. MPEP § 609, under the heading "Minimum Requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement," under the subheading "B(3). Information Disclosure Statement Filed After B(2), but Prior to Payment of Issue Fee 37 CFR 1.97 (d)", and subheading "B(5) Statement Under 37 CFR 1.97(e)." (A) The statement specified in 37 CFR § 1.97(e) requires that the practitioner certify, after reasonable inquiry, that no item of information contained in the IDS was known to any individual designated in 37 CFR § 1.56(c) more than three months prior to the filing of the information disclosure statement. The practitioner cannot certify this because the reference was known to the client before February 11, 2002, the time of filing of the utility application, which was more than three months prior to the filing of the information disclosure statement. See (B), stating a procedure that conforms with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, is an incorrect answer. Under 37 CFR § 1.313(a), a petition to withdraw the application from issue is not required if a proper RCE is filed before payment of the issue fee. (C), stating a procedure that conforms with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, is an incorrect answer. A practitioner can file a continuing application on or before the date that the issue fee is due and permit the parent application to become abandoned for failure to pay the issue fee. (D), stating a procedure that conforms with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, is an incorrect answer. Under 37 CFR § 1.313(c)(3), a petition to withdraw the application from issue can be filed after payment of the issue fee to permit the express abandonment of the application in favor of a continuing application. (E), stating a procedure that conforms with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, is an incorrect answer. Under 37 CFR § 1.313(c)(2), a petition to withdraw the application from issue can be filed after payment of the issue fee to permit consideration of a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR § 1.114. See also MPEP § 1308.

Question 18

A registered practitioner filed a patent application in the Office in 1999. Following examination and a final rejection, the practitioner timely filed a proper notice of appeal and a proper appeal brief in the application wherein claims 1-3 stand rejected, claims 4 and 5, which depend from claim 1, stand objected to as depending from a rejected claim but are otherwise allowable, and claims 6-10 stand allowed. The appeal involves claims 1-3. After the brief was filed but prior to a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the practitioner filed a request for continued examination (RCE) with a submission in accordance with 37 CFR 1.114 without paying the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e). In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, what effect does the filing of the RCE without the fee set forth in Rule 1.17(e) have on the application under appeal?

Accepted Answer

See MPEP §§ 706.07(h), under the heading "X. After Appeal But Before Decision By Board," and 1215.01. As explained in MPEP § 1215.01, "The filing of an RCE will be treated as a withdrawal of the appeal by the applicant, regardless of whether the RCE includes the appropriate fee or a submission." Thus, the filing of the RCE without the fee results in the withdrawal of the appeal in this application and passage of the application to issue with the allowed claims 6-10 after the cancellation of both rejected claims 1- 3 and claims 4 and 5 which are allowable except for their dependency from rejected claim 1 (A) is incorrect. As also explained in MPEP § 1215.01, although an application under appeal having no allowed claims will be considered abandoned by the filing of an improper RCE, an application having allowed claims will be passed to issue with the allowed claims. Upon withdrawal of appeal, claims which are allowable except for their dependency from rejected claims will be treated as if they were rejected. See MPEP § 1215.01. All rejected claims, such as claims 1-3, and claims which are allowable except for their dependency from rejected claims, such as claims 4 and 5, will be canceled. (B) is incorrect. As explained in MPEP § 706.07(h), under the heading "After Appeal But Before Decision By The Board," proceedings as to the rejected claims are terminated and the application is passed to issue with the allowed claims. MPEP § 1215.01 explains that the filing of an RCE will be treated as a withdrawal of the appeal by the applicant, regardless of whether the RCE includes the appropriate fee or a submission. (C) is incorrect for the reasons explained for (A), and because claims 4 and 5 will be canceled. (E) is incorrect. The RCE, which was filed without the fee, is improper. Thus, as explained in MPEP § 706.07(h),. under the heading, "After Appeal But Before Decision By The Board," proceedings as to the rejected claims are terminated and the application is passed to issue with the allowed claims. MPEP § 1215.01 explains that the filing of an RCE will be treated as a withdrawal of the appeal by the applicant, regardless of whether the RCE includes the appropriate fee or a submission.

Question 19

Prosecution before the primary examiner results in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 2 was objected to as being allowable except for its dependency from claim 1. Independent claim 3 has been allowed. The rejection of claim 1 is properly appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The Board properly affirms the rejection of claim 1. Appellant has filed no response to the decision of the Board, the appellant has taken no action, and the time for filing an appeal to the court or a civil action has expired. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following actions is the most appropriate response by the examiner?

Accepted Answer

37 CFR § 1.197(c); MPEP § 1214.06. This case is specifically set forth in MPEP § 1214.06 under the heading "Claims Stand Allowed." Answers (A), (B) and (C) apply only if no claims stand allowed in the application. They are incorrect because the facts state that claim 3 was allowed. See MPEP § 1214.06, under the heading "No Claims Stand Allowed." (B) is incorrect. See MPEP § 1214.06 under the heading "Claims Stand Allowed." Where one or more other claims stand allowed, the examiner is not authorized to convert to independent form a dependent claim that has been objected to (but not allowed or rejected) based on its dependency to a rejected claim. (C) is incorrect. See MPEP § 1214.06 under the heading "Claims Stand Allowed." Where one or more other claims stand allowed, the examiner is not authorized to provide appellant with time to rewrite a dependent claim into independent form where the dependent claim was objected to (but not allowed or rejected) based on its dependency to a rejected claim.

Question 20

In accordance with patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following transitional phrases exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps from the scope of a claim?

Accepted Answer

As set forth in MPEP § 2111.03 states "[t]he transitional term 'comprising' [Answer (A)], which is synonymous with 'including' [Answer (D)], 'containing' [Answer (B)], or 'characterized by' [Answer (C)], is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. Since Answers (A), (B), (C) and (D) are all open-ended transitional phrases they are incorrect answers. .

Quiz 1: Patent Officer

In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, definiteness of claim language under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but in light of:

In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following statements regarding operability or enablement of a prior art reference is the most correct?

When, in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, is a supplemental oath or declaration treated as an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312?

In accordance with patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following transitional phrases exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps from the scope of a claim?