2002 oct

Question 1

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”) executes the application?

Answer 1

409 Death, Legal Incapacity, or Unavailability of Inventor
400 Representative of Applicant or Owner
the signing inventor

Question 2

Paul, a registered patent practitioner and counsel for Superior Aircraft, Inc. (“Superior”), filed a patent application naming chief engineer Davis as sole inventor, and claiming a titanium and aluminum alloy designed for use in advanced gas turbine engines in aircraft. The application described the alloy as having unexpectedly excellent and improved room temperature ductility. The application was filed with an assignment document transferring all right, title and interest in the application to Superior. During prosecution of the application, the examiner had an interview with Paul and Davis of Superior. The examiner noted the existence of a prior art publication that disclosed test data demonstrating that the claimed alloys exhibited poor room temperature ductility, and stated that he had personal knowledge that the alloy was old and well known. Davis agreed with the examiner, and stated that such information was “old hat,” but that they overcame the ductility problem by simply resorting to a 3-step process of microstructure refinement. Paul concurred and pointed to the fact that not only had they disclosed the process in the application, but that microstructure refinement of alloys to improve ductility was so well- known that the technique was even taught in metallurgy courses in college. Which of the following statements is false?

The examiner may reject the alloy claims on the basis of the prior art publication.
The examiner may not reject the alloy claims on the basis of the prior art publication, because the alloys of the application are characterized by unexpected, improved ductility properties.
The examiner may rely upon the chief engineer’s statement as an admission against patentability.
The examiner may rely upon the patent counsel’s statement as an admission against patentability.
The examiner, having facts within his or her personal knowledge, may rely on the facts in rejecting the alloy claims.

Answer 2

(B) is best choice because it is a false statement. MPEP § 2112.01 cites Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 660. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985), as stating, “it was immaterial what properties the alloys had…because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.” (A) is not correct because it is a true statement. (C), (D) and (E) are incorrect because the stated reliance is permitted. 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(3); MPEP § 706.

2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims [R-08.2012]
I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT

Question 3

Which of the following is an effective way to overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection?

Answer 3

MPEP § 804.02, subpart (II) reads, “A rejection based on a nonstatutory type of double patenting can be avoided by filing a terminal disclaimer in the application or proceeding in which the rejection is made.”

Question 4

In accordance with MPEP § 1500, relating to design patent applications:
(A) the invention may be properly represented in a single application by both an ink drawing and a black and white photograph.
(B) the invention may be properly represented in a single application by a black and white photograph disclosing environmental structure by broken lines, in lieu of an ink drawing if the invention is shown more clearly in the photograph.
(C) the invention may be properly represented in a single application by both an ink drawing and a color photograph, and the application should be accompanied by the required petition, fee, three sets of color photographs, and an amendment to the specification.
(D) the invention may be properly represented by a color photograph disclosing environmental structure by broken lines, in lieu of an ink drawing if the invention is not capable of being illustrated in an ink drawing.
(E) the invention may be properly represented by a color photograph if the invention is not capable of being illustrated in an ink drawing, and if the application is accompanied by the required petition, fee, and an amendment to the specification is presented to insert required language regarding the color photographs, and three sets of color photographs.

Answer 4

(E) is correct. The statement finds support in MPEP § 1503.02, V. “Photographs and Color Drawings.” (A) and (C) are wrong because 37 C.F.R. § 1.152 states, “Photographs and ink drawings are not permitted to be combined as formal drawings in one application.” Reproduced in MPEP § 1503.02.

Question 5

Inventor A filed a patent application and assigned the entire interest in the application to
his employer, MegaCorp. The application issued as a utility patent on July 9, 2002. In June 2004, MegaCorp’s management first learns that a second inventor, Inventor B, should have been named as a co-inventor with respect to at least one claim of the issued patent. There was no deceptive intent in failing to name Inventor B in the original application. Inventor A, who is unfamiliar with patent law and concepts of inventorship, incorrectly believes that he should be the sole named inventor on the patent, and refuses to cooperate with any effort by MegaCorp to change the named inventive entity. The issued patent contains no other error. In accordance with the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, which of the following procedures is/are available for MegaCorp to seek correction of the named inventive entity without any agreement, cooperation or action from Inventor A?

File, on or before July 9, 2004, a reissue application, made by MegaCorp only, that seeks to add Inventor B.
File, after July 9, 2004, a reissue application, made by MegaCorp only, that seeks to add Inventor B.
Request a Certificate of Correction to add Inventor B as a named inventor.
Submit in the issued patent file: a Request for Correction of Inventorship Under the Provisions of 37 CFR 1.48 that sets forth the desired inventorship change; a statement by Inventor B that the error in inventorship occurred without deceptive intention on her part; an oath or declaration executed by Inventor B; all required fees; and the written consent of MegaCorp.
(E) A and B are each available procedures.

Answer 5

The best choice is (E). See MPEP § 1412.04. Reissue is a proper vehicle for correcting inventorship in a patent. Because correction of inventorship does not enlarge the scope of the patent claims, the reissue application may be filed more than two years after the patent issued.

Choice (D) is incorrect because the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.48 are not available to correct inventorship in an issued patent.

Question 6

Applicant received a final rejection dated and mailed Wednesday, February 28, 2001. The final rejection set a three month shortened statutory period for reply. In reply, applicant filed an amendment on Wednesday, March 21, 2001. In the amendment, applicant requested that block diagrams, figures 32-34, be amended by inserting the term - -computer- - in place of [CPU] in block “2” of each block diagram. Applicant further supplied a clean version of the entire set of pending claims. Applicant did not provide the proposed changes to the drawings on separate sheets marked in red nor did the applicant supply a marked-up version of any claim. The examiner upon receipt and review of the amendment discovered that the applicant made changes to pending claims 2 and 15 and that the applicant added claims 21-25 to the application. The examiner in an Advisory Action notifies the applicant that the amendment fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121. Which of the following answers is most correct?

Applicant is given a time period of one month or thirty days from the mailing date of the Advisory Action, whichever is longer, within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. This time period is in addition to any remaining period of time set in the final rejection.
Applicant may not provide a clean version of the entire set of pending claims because the applicant may only consolidate all previous versions of pending claims into a single clean version in an amendment after a non-final Office action. Applicant must submit the proposed changes to figures 32-34 on a separate paper showing the proposed changes in red and a marked up version of new claims 21- 25 as required by 37 CFR 1.121(c).
Applicant should request reconsideration by the examiner, pointing out that the Final Rejection was mailed on February 28, 2001, which precedes the March 1, 2001 effective date of the changes to patent rule 37 CFR 1.121.
Applicant must submit the changes to figures 32-34 on separate paper showing the proposed changes in red and a marked up version of rewritten claims 2 and 15 showing all changes (relative to the previous version of claims 2 and 15) shown by any conventional marking system as required by 37 CFR 1.121(c). Applicant should also indicate the status of claims 2 and 15, e.g. “amended,” “twice amended,” etc. on both the clean version of the claims and the marked up version.

Answer 6

(E) is the most correct answer. 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(c) and (d), and MPEP § 714, page 700-169 through 172 (8th Ed.) (Amendments, Applicant’s Action).

714 Amendments, Applicant’s action
will relink to CFR so have to search the rules

Question 7

Declassified printed material is effective as a printed publication under 35 USC 102(b) as of the date of its release following declassification.

Answer 7

true; old MPEP § 707.05(f) states, “In the use of [declassified material] … as an anticipatory publication, the date of release following declassification is the effective date of publication within the meaning of the statute.”

Question 8

Where an amendment is filed with a patent application that has no signed oath or declaration, a subsequently filed oath or declaration must refer to both the application and amendment, but in any case the amendment will not be considered as part of the original disclosure and will be treated as new matter.

Answer 8

incorrect as a preliminary amendment may be filed with the original disclosure and will be treated as part of the original disclosure in accordance with MPEP § 608.04(b)

Question 9

If a prima facie case of obviousness is properly established by a primary examiner, how can an applicant effectively rebut the rejection in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
(A) Rebuttal may be by way of arguments of counsel used in place of factually supported objective evidence to rebut the prima facie case.
(B) Rebuttal may be by way of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 containing objective evidence arising out of a secondary consideration related to the claimed invention.

Answer 9

(B). MPEP § 716.01(a). Affidavits or declarations containing objective evidence of criticality, unexpected results, commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, skepticism of experts, is considered by an examiner. (A) is incorrect. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); MPEP § 716.01(c), subsection styled “Attorney Arguments Cannot Take The Place of Evidence”; 2145, part I. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence.

Question 10

Where subject matter for which there is an enabling disclosure, but is not shown in the drawing or described in the detailed description preceding the claim(s), which of the following is not in accordance with the provisions of the MPEP?

Answer 10

608 disclosure including claims drawings and specification

Question 11

Which of the following is not in accordance with the provisions in the MPEP?
(A) A continuation-in-part is an application filed during the lifetime of an earlier nonprovisional application by the same applicant, which repeat either some substantial portion or all of the earlier nonprovisional application, and adds matter not disclosed in the said earlier nonprovisional application.
(B) A continuation-in-part application may only be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b).
(C) A continuation-in-part application cannot be filed as a continued prosecution
application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d).
(D) An application claiming the benefits of a provisional application under 35 USC
119(e) should not be called a “continuation-in-part” of the provisional application.
(E) One of the formal requirements of 35 USC 120 is that a continuation-in-part application must be “filed before a notice of allowance or abandonment is mailed
in the prior application.”

Answer 11

(E). As to (E), it is not in accord with MPEP § 201.08 since the application need not be filed before a notice of allowance, but instead before patenting of the first application. (A) through (C) are found in MPEP § 201.08.

Question 12

A multiple dependent claim contains all the limitations of all the alternative claims to which it refers.

Answer 12

false; Thus, a multiple dependent claim, as such, does not contain all the limitations of all the alternative claims to which it refers, but rather contains in any one embodiment only those limitations of the particular claim referred to for the embodiment under consideration. Hence, a multiple dependent claim must be considered in the same manner as a plurality of single dependent claims.

Question 13

One or more of the limitations in the claims is indefinite or lacks supporting disclosure. The examiner may not properly take which of the following actions or inactions?

If the claim is subject to plural interpretations due to a limitation being indefinite, the examiner may disregard any possibility of multiple interpretations.
If a claim is subject to more than one interpretation due to a limitation being indefinite, at least one of which would render the claim unpatentable over the prior art, the examiner should reject the claim as indefinite under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, and should reject the claim over the prior art based on the interpretation of the claim that renders the prior art applicable.

Answer 13

A; MPEP § 2143.03 (Indefinite Limitations Must Be Considered). (B) is not correct because it is proper procedure to be followed by an examiner. MPEP § 2143.03, (Indefinite Limitations Must Be Considered)

Question 14

John filed a nonprovisional patent application in the USPTO claiming two distinct inventions, a combination and a subcombination. At the time of filing the nonprovisional application, he recorded an assignment of all right, title, and interest in the inventions claimed in the application to ABC Corporation. In the first Office action, the examiner required restriction, and John elected the combination. A year later, during the pendency of the nonprovisional application, John filed a divisional patent application claiming the subcombination. At the time of filing the divisional application, John assigned all right, title, and interest in the inventions claimed in the divisional application to XYZ Corporation, and the latter party recorded the assignment within three months of the assignment. Following recordation of the assignment to XYZ Corporation, which of the following statements is false?

The Office should treat John as having no ownership rights in the combination.
The Office should treat John as having no ownership rights in the subcombination.
(C) ABC Corporation has no ownership rights in the subcombination.
(D) XYZ Corporation has no ownership rights in the combination.
(E) XYZ Corporation has no ownership rights in the subcombination.

Answer 14

(C) is a false statement and therefore the correct answer. Under 35 U.S.C. § 261, “An assignment, grant, or conveyance shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for a valuable consideration, without notice, unless it is recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office within three months from its date or prior to the date of such subsequent purchase or mortgage.”

Question 15

Which of the following statements relevant to a third party submission in a published patent application accords with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
(A) A submission of patents by a member of the public must be made within 2 months of the date of publication of the application.
(B) A submission of patents by a member of the public must be made prior to the mailing of a Notice of Allowance.
(C) A submission of patents by a member of the public must be made within 2 months of the date of publication of the application or prior to the mailing of a Notice of Allowance, whichever is later.
(D) A submission of patents by a member of the public must be made within 2 months of the date of publication of the application or prior to the mailing of a Notice of Allowance, whichever is earlier.
(E) Any submission not filed within the period set forth in the patent rules will be accepted provided it is accompanied by the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i).

Answer 15

(D) is correct because 37 C.F.R. § 1.99(e) provides, “A submission under this section must be filed within two months from the date of publication of the application (§ 1.215(a)) or prior to the mailing of a notice of allowance (§ 1.311), whichever is earlier.”

Question 16

One of the conditions for benefit under 35 USC 119(a) is that the foreign application must be for the same or a nonobvious improvement of the invention described in the United States application.

Answer 16

the inventions must be the same in the foreign and U.S. applications.

Question 17

Which
with an examiner concerning an application will be granted in accordance with proper USPTO rules and procedure?

A request for an interview in a substitute application prior to the first Office action, for the examiner and attorney of record to meet in the practitioner’s office without the authority of the Commissioner.
A request for an interview in a continued prosecution application prior to the first Office action, to be held in the examiner’s office.

Answer 17

(B) is the correct answer. 37 C.F.R. § 1.133 (effective November 7, 2000); “Changes To Implement the Patent Business Goals; Final Rule,” 65 FR 54604, 54640-54641 (September 8, 2000). As stated in 65 FR at 54641, left column, “Comment 65: One comment urged that interviews be allowed in a CPA prior to a first action. Response: The comment has been adopted in a broader manner to apply to all continuations and substitute applications that conform to practice set forth in the MPEP.” Thus, (B) is correct. (A) is incorrect because interview will not be permitted off Office premises without the authority of the Commissioner. 37 C.F.R. § 1.133(a)(1).

Question 18

Which of the following is true?
(A) There is no practical difference between an objection and rejection of a claim.
(B) If the form of the claim (as distinguished from its substance) is improper, an
objection is made.
(C) An objection, if maintained by an examiner, is subject to review by the Board of
Patent Appeals and Interferences.
(D) An example of a proper objection is where the claims are refused because they
fail to comply with the second paragraph of 35 USC 112.
(E) An example of a proper rejection is a rejection of a dependent claim for being
dependent on a claim that has been rejected only over prior art, where the dependent claim is otherwise allowable.

Answer 18

“The practical difference between a rejection and an objection is that a rejection, involving the merits of the claim, is subject to review by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, while an objection, if persisted, may be reviewed only by way of petition to the Commissioner.”

As stated in MPEP § 706.01, “If the form of the claim (as distinguished from its substance) is improper, an “objection” is made. An example of a matter of form as to which objection is made is dependency of a claim on a rejected claim, if the dependent claim is otherwise allowable. See MPEP § § 608.01(n).

Question 19

Which of the following timely actions should you take to accord maximum patent protection at minimum government fees for your client whose invention is described in a provisional patent application that was filed 6 months ago with no claim?

File a request to convert the provisional application to a nonprovisional application, accompanied by a proper executed declaration, an amendment including at least one claim as prescribed by paragraph 2 of 35 USC 112 and the proper fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i).
File a request to convert the provisional application to a nonprovisional application, accompanied by a proper executed declaration, an amendment including at least one claim as prescribed by paragraph 2 of 35 USC 112, the proper fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i), and the basic filing fee for the nonprovisional application.
File a request to convert the provisional application to a nonprovisional application, accompanied by a proper executed declaration, an amendment including at least one claim as prescribed by paragraph 2 of 35 USC 112, the proper fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i), the basic filing fee for the nonprovisional application, and the surcharge required by 37 CFR 1.16(e).
File a nonprovisional application including at least one claim accompanied by a proper executed declaration, and the basic filing fee. The application contains a specific reference to the provisional application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78(a)(5).
File a nonprovisional application including at least one claim accompanied by a proper executed declaration but without the basic filing fee. The application contains a specific reference to the provisional application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78(a)(5).

Answer 19

(D) is correct. (A), (B) and (C) are wrong because MPEP § 601.01(c) states, “Claiming priority is less expensive [than conversion] and will result in a longer patent term.” Conversion requires payment of the conversion fee. (D) is correct because MPEP § 601.01(c) states, “In addition, if the provisional application was not filed with an executed oath or declaration and the filing fee for a non-provisional application, the surcharge set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.16(e) is required. (E) is wrong because the action taken claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1) rather than conversion under 37C.F.R. § 1.53(c)(3). No surcharge is required.

Question 20

If the application is involved in an interference, and a petition under 37 CFR 1.48 is filed to correct inventorship, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences will remand the case to the primary examiner for consideration of the petition to ensure that a search of the relevant prior art is performed.

Answer 20

incorrect at least for the reasons that if the application is involved in an interference the Board will decide the petition. See MPEP § 201.03.

Question 21

A claim, as required by the second through fifth paragraphs of section 112, shall not be
required in
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
a _____________ patent application.
reissue design continuation provisional plant

Answer 21

(D) is correct because 35 U.S.C. § 111(b)(2) states, “A claim, as required by the second through fifth paragraphs of section 112, shall not be required in a provisional application.” MPEP § 201.

Question 22

Applicant Jones filed a request for a first continued prosecution application (CPA) on December 29, 2000 in a utility application that was filed on April 28, 2000. Jones received a final Office action mailed on June 28, 2001. In response, Jones filed an amendment amending the claims in the first CPA. Jones received an advisory action on September 27, 2001 stating that the proposed amendment to the first CPA would not be entered because it raises new issues that would require further consideration. Additionally, the proposed amendment did not meet the requirements for a complete reply under 37 CFR 1.111. On December 28, 2001, Jones filed a petition for a 3-month extension of time with appropriate petition fee, a request for a second continued prosecution application, a request for suspension of action, and appropriate processing fee for the request for suspension of action. No application filing fee was filed with the request for the second CPA. Which of the following would be a proper communication mailed by the Office based on Jones’ actions?
(A) A Notice of Allowability.
(B) A Notice to File Missing Parts.
(C) A first Office action on the merits.
(D) A notice of improper Request for Continued Examination (RCE) and a notice of
abandonment.
(E) A letter granting the suspension of action.

Answer 22

The most correct answer is (D). See MPEP § 706.07(h), page 700-71, under “IV. IMPROPER CPA TREATED AS RCE.” The request for a second CPA filed on December 28, 2001 is improper because the application in which the CPA was filed in has a filing date of December 29, 2000 and is not eligible for the CPA practice. The CPA practice does not apply to applications that have a filing date on or after May 29, 2000. The Office will automatically treat the improper request for a CPA as a Request for Continued Examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. However, the request for a CPA filed on December 28, 2001 does not satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.114 to be a proper RCE because it lacks the filing fee required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.17, and the required submission under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Therefore, the improper CPA will be treated as an improper RCE and the time period set in the last Office action mailed on June 28, 2001will continue to run. Since the time period expired on December 28, 2001, the application is abandoned.

Question 23

Adams filed Application X on March 1, 2001. Beth filed application Y on May 1, 2001. Neither application has been published. Applications X and Y are copending and commonly assigned. Earlier filed application X claims the same invention as claimed in application Y using identical language. In accordance with the MPEP, which of the following actions should the examiner or assignee follow?

(A) The claims to the same invention in application Y should be rejected under 35 USC 102(a) as being anticipated by application X.
(B) The claims to the same invention in application Y should be rejected under 35 USC 102(b) as being anticipated by application X.
(C) The claims to the same invention in application Y should be rejected under 35 USC 102(e) as being provisionally anticipated by application X.
(D) The common assignee should file a terminal disclaimer in application Y to avoid any question of double patenting.
(E) The claims to the same invention in application Y should be rejected under 35 USC 102(e) as being anticipated by application X.

Answer 23

(C) is correct 35 U.S.C. § 102(e); MPEP § 804

Question 24

The MPEP sets forth a procedure whereby an examiner may contact an applicant to discuss election of claims after the examiner determines that a restriction requirement should be made. Assume that a primary examiner contacts a practitioner representing applicant by telephone prior to any Office action on the merits, and the examiner orally makes a restriction requirement. During the telephone conversation, the practitioner orally makes an election of claims without traverse. On examination, the examiner finds the elected claims to be allowable. Which of the following would be improper for the examiner to include in a letter to the practitioner attached to a Notice of Allowability?
(A) A cancellation of the non-elected claims.
(B) A statement that the prosecution is closed.
(C) A statement that a Notice of Allowance will be sent in due course.
(D) A statement that the applicant’s election is not upheld because an election must
only be made in writing, and cannot be made by telephone.
(E) All of the above.

Answer 24

(D) is the correct answer. MPEP § 812.01. Choices (A), (B), and (C) are each incorrect because MPEP § 812.01 reads, “If, on examination, the examiner finds the elected claims to be allowable and no traverse was made, the letter should be attached to the Notice of Allowability form PTOL-37 and should include cancellation of the nonelected claims, a statement that the prosecution is closed, and that a notice of allowance will be sent in due course.”

Question 25

Which of the following practices or procedures may be properly employed to overcome a rejection properly based on 35 USC 102(a)?

Perfecting a claim to priority under 35 USC 119(a)-(d) based on a foreign application having a foreign priority filing date that antedates the reference.
Filing a declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 showing that the cited prior art antedates the invention.
Filing a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing that the reference invention is by “others.”
Perfecting priority under 35 USC 119(e) or 120 by, in part, amending the declaration of the application to contain a specific reference to a prior application having a filing date prior to the reference.
(A), (B) (C), and (D).

Answer 25

(A). See MPEP § 706.02(b) page 700-23 (8th ed.), under the heading “Overcoming a 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection Based on a Printed Publication or Patent.” (B), and (C) are incorrect because they present showings that support the rejection. See MPEP § 706.02(b), supra. (D) are not correct because to perfect priority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e) or 120 it is, inter alia, necessary to amend the specification of the application to contain a specific reference to a prior application having a filing date prior to the reference. See MPEP § 706.02(b), supra. Furthermore, the declaration is not to be amended. (E) is incorrect because (B), (C) and (D) are incorrect.

Question 26

Xavier files a complete first reply exactly 10 weeks after the mailing date of a final Office action that sets a 3 month shortened statutory period for reply. An Examiner’s Amendment is necessary for the purpose of placing the application in condition for allowance. Which of the following statements is true?
(A) If Xavier gives authorization for the Examiner’s Amendment exactly 2 months after his reply, the application will be allowed.
(B) Authorization for the Examiner’s Amendment may be made at any time within 6 months of Xavier’s reply to avoid abandonment of the application..
(C) Unless Xavier gives authorization for the Examiner’s Amendment within the 3 months shortened statutory period for reply, the application will be abandoned.
(D) If Xavier gives authorization for the Examiner’s Amendment exactly 2 months after his reply, the application will be abandoned unless accompanied by a proper petition and fee for an extension of time.
(E) Abandonment of the application will be avoided if Xavier gives authorization for the Examiner’s Amendment any time within 6 months of the mail date of a final Office action. No extension of time need be filed if Xavier gives the authorization between 3 months and 6 months after the Office action.

Answer 26

(D) is correct. (A), (C), and (E) are wrong because MPEP § 706.07(f), paragraph (I), states, “Where a complete first reply to a final Office action has not been filed within 2 months of the final Office action, applicant’s authorization to make an amendment to place the application in condition for allowance must be made either within the 3 month shortened statutory period or within an extended period for reply that has been petitioned and paid for by applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a).”

Question 27

On Monday, May 13, 2002, John’s secretary deposited in an “Express Mail” drop box prior to the last scheduled pick-up for that day, an envelope properly addressed to the USPTO for delivery to the USPTO by the “Express Mail Post Office to Addressee” service. The envelope was received by the USPTO on Wednesday, May 15, 2002, containing a reply to an Office action which set a shortened statutory period (“SSP”) for reply ending on Tuesday, May 14, 2002. The reply was marked by the Office as being received on May 15, 2002. The number of the “Express Mail” mailing label had not been placed on the response papers, and upon receipt of the “Express Mail” mailing label John learned that the “date in” was not clearly marked. John promptly filed a petition requesting the filing date to be the date of deposit. The petition included a showing that the date of deposit accompanied by evidence of USPS corroboration of the deposit. Accordingly,

The reply will be regarded as timely filed in the USPTO on May 15, 2002.
The reply will be regarded as timely filed in the USPTO on May 14, 2002.
The reply will be regarded as timely filed in the USPTO on May 13, 2002.
The reply will be regarded as timely filed in the USPTO if a petition with proper fee for a one month extension of time is filed in the USPTO on or before June 14, 2002.
The reply will be regarded as timely filed in the USPTO if the number of the “Express Mail” mailing label is placed on each page of a copy of the original response and hand carried to the USPTO on May 15, 2002, rather than being sent by “Express Mail.”

Answer 27

(D) is correct. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) states, “[A]pplicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed…” (A) is wrong because the response was not timely filed since it was received by the USPTO after the SSP expired. (B) and (C) are wrong. The reply was not filed on May 14, 2002, because the conditions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.10(b) were not satisfied. For example, the number of the “Express Mail” mailing label must have been placed on each page of the response prior to the original mailing by “Express Mail.” The petition should not be expected to be granted inasmuch as the papers did not include the number of the “Express Mail” mailing label on them. See § 1.10(c)(2), (d)(2), and (e)(2). (E) is wrong because 37 C.F.R. § 1.10(b) requires that “the number of the ‘Express Mail’ mailing label must have been placed on each page of the response prior to the original mailing by ‘Express Mail.’” Emphasis added.

Question 28

If there is a discrepancy between the information submitted in an application data sheet and the information submitted elsewhere in the application, the application data sheet will control except for the naming of the inventors and the citizenship of the inventors, which is governed by the oath or declaration.

Answer 28

right; 600

Question 29

All patent applicants should use the English units of measurement followed by the equivalent metric units when describing their inventions in the specifications of patent applications.

Answer 29

wrong; 600
according to MPEP § 608.01 at p. 600-58, “In order to minimize the necessity in the future for converting dimensions given in the English system of measurements to the metric system of measurements when using printed patents as research and prior art search documents, all patent applicants should use the metric units (SI) followed by the equivalent English units when describing their inventions in the specifications of patent applications.”

Question 30

Unexpected results can be shown by factual evidence or, if no factual evidence is available to the applicant, by sound argument by the applicant’s agent or attorney.

Answer 30

mere attorney argument, unsupported by factual evidence, is insufficient to establish unexpected results.

Question 31

A patent application filed in the USPTO claims a nylon rope coated with element E for the purpose of preventing breakage of the rope. In the first Office action, the examiner rejects the claim as obvious over P in view of a trade journal publication, T. P teaches a nylon rope coated with resin for the purpose of making the rope waterproof. T teaches a nylon tent fabric coated with element E for the purpose of making the tent waterproof, and suggests the use of element E for making other nylon products waterproof. Following proper USPTO practices and procedures, the combination of P and T:

cannot support a prima facie case of obviousness because T lacks a suggestion to combine with P for the purpose of preventing breakage in nylon rope.
cannot support a prima facie case of obviousness because P lacks a suggestion to combine with T for the purpose of preventing breakage in nylon rope.
cannot support a prima facie case of obviousness because T only contains a suggestion to combine with P for the purpose of waterproofing nylon rope.
can support a prima facie case of obviousness, even though T only contains a suggestion to combine with P for the purpose of waterproofing nylon rope.
can support a prima facie case of obviousness because the applicant is always under an obligation to submit evidence of non-obviousness regardless of whether the examiner fully establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.

Answer 31

(D). “It is not necessary in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness…that there be a suggestion or expectation from the prior art that the claimed [invention] will have the same or a similar utility as one newly discovered by the applicant.”

Thus, “[i]t is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.” MPEP § 2144 (“Rationale Different from Applicant’s is Permissible”). Here, T suggests the combination with P to achieve a different advantage or result, i.e., waterproofing, from that discovered by applicant, i.e., reducing breakage.

Question 32

The procedures in the MPEP do not require an applicant claiming foreign priority in a nonprovisional utility application to:
(A) submit the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i) if the claim for priority or submission of the certified copy of the priority document is made after payment of the issue fee and before the patent is granted.
(B) identify the foreign application for which priority is being claimed as well as any foreign application for the same subject matter having a filing date before that of the application for which priority is being claimed.
(C) file the claim in the application.
(D) have the same inventive entity listed in the foreign application as in the U.S.
application in which the priority claim has been filed.
(E) identify the intellectual property authority or country in or for which the foreign
application was filed.

Answer 32

(D). There is no requirement as to the inventive entity being the same.

B. 200

Question 33

The assignee of record of a part interest in an application may always intervene in the prosecution of the application, appointing a registered attorney or agent of his or her own choice, without participation by any or all other assignees.

Answer 33

NOT TRUE because only the 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. MPEP at p. 100-16. An assignee of record of a part interest is, however, entitled to inspect the application.

Question 34

uspto will recognize The applicant executes a power of attorney naming only a law firm to prosecute the application.

Answer 34

MPEP § 402 states that “Powers of attorney or authorizations of agent naming firms of attorneys or agents filed in patent applications will not be recognized.”

Question 35

An applicant’s claim stands rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Larry in view of Morris. Larry and Morris are references published more than one year before applicant’s effective filing. Although the examiner cites no suggestion or motivation for combining the references, they are, in fact, combinable. Which of the following arguments could properly show that the claim is not obvious?

The inventions disclosed by Larry and Morris cannot be physically combined. Neither Larry nor Morris provides an express suggestion to combine the references.
As recognized by businessmen, the high cost of Larry’s device teaches away from combining it with the simpler device of Morris.
Absent a suggestion or motivation, the examiner has not shown that combining Larry’s with Morris’s device would have been within the level of ordinary skill of the art.
None of the above.

Answer 35

(D) is correct. “The mere fact that references can be combined or modified does not render the resultant combination obvious unless the prior art also suggests the desirability of the combination.” MPEP § 2143.01 (citing In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 16 USPQ2d 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Here, the examiner fails to show that substituting Larry’s device for another type of device in Morris would have been desirable.