MyPatentBar Old Answers Flashcards

Question

24. Able and Baker conceived an improved gas grille for cookouts. Using elements A, B, C, D, E and F found in their backyards, as well as elements G, H, I, J, K, L, M and N purchased at a local hardware store, they successfully constructed and used a gas grille conforming to their concept. The grille includes subcombination of elements K, L and M conceived by Able, and subcombination C, D, F, G and M conceived by Baker. Able and Baker conceived their respective subcombinations separately and at different times. Able and Baker retain you to prepare and file a patent application for them. You are considering whether and what can be claimed in one patent application. Which of the following is true? (A) For Able and Baker to properly execute an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 in a patent application claiming not only the grille, but also the two subcombinations, Able and Baker must be joint inventors of the grille, and each of the two subcombinations. (B) A characteristic of U.S. patent law that is generally shared by other countries is that the applicant for a *****Changed by AIA***** patent must be the inventor. (C) If Able and Baker execute an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 as joint inventors and file an application claiming the grille (a combination of elements A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M and N), the existence of the claim to the grille is evidence of their joint inventorship of the individual elements. (D) Able and Baker may properly execute an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 as joint inventors and file an application containing claims to the grille (a combination of elements A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M and N), claims to the subcombination conceived by Able, and claims to the subcombination conceived by Baker. (E) Able and Baker could not properly claim the combination unless they successfully and personally reduced the grille to practice.

Answer 1

§ 2137.01, “Inventorship,” and see Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Distributing, 23 USPQ2d 1921, 1925 – 26 (Fed. Cir. 1992); and Moler v. Purdy, 131 USPQ 276, 279 (Bd. Pat. Inter. 1960). (A) is not correct. MPEP § 2137.01 (Requirements for Joint Inventorship) and see Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Distributing, 23 USPQ2d 1921, 1925 – 26 (Fed. Cir. 1992); and Moler v. Purdy, 131 USPQ 276, 279 (Bd. Pat. Inter. 1960). (B) is not correct. 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 115; MPEP § 2137.01. (C) is not correct. MPEP § 2137.01. The inventor of an element, per se, and the inventor of a combination using that element may differ. See In re DeBaun, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982); and In re Facius, 161 USPQ 294, 301 (CCPA 1969). (E) is not correct. There is no provision in the Patent Statute requiring the invention to be reduced to practice in order to file a patent application claiming the invention. Further, see MPEP § 2137.01; and see In re DeBaun, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982).

Answer 2

26. All answers accepted.

Answer 3

30. ANSWER: The most correct answer is (C). The level of ordinary skill in the art is one of the factors that must be considered in any obviousness determination. Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). (A) is not the best answer because 35 U.S.C. § 103 specifically states that patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. (B) is not the best answer because economic unfeasibility is not a basis for a determination of nonobviousness. See MPEP § 2145 VII. (D) is directed to the issue of enablement, not obviousness. (E) is wrong because the commercial success of the prior art distance finder is not relevant (although commercial success of Kat’s invention would be relevant).

Answer 4

1. ANSWER: (B) is the correct answer. 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph and MPEP § 2173.05(c)(III). The claim presented in (B) is improper as “an effective amount” has been held to be indefinite when the claim fails to state the function that is to be achieved and more than one effect can be implied from the specification. In re Fredericksen 213 F.2d 547, 102 USPQ 35 (CCPA 1954). It is unclear whether “an effective amount” in (B) is an effective amount to reduce acidity or an effective amount to reduce moisture. The claims presented in (A) and (C) find support in the disclosure, which provides guidelines for determining “an effective amount” for each of the claims in (A) and (C). MPEP § 2173.05(c)(III). The claim presented in (D) is not indefinite, given that A, B, and C are known materials as set forth in the question and the composition can be determined by the claim language. (E) is incorrect because (B) is correct.

Answer 5

3. ANSWER: (D). Under 37 CFR 1.85(a), correcting the drawings to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) and (k), and making them suitable for reproduction is a bona fide response. (A), (B), and (C) are not the most correct answer. In each, Smith seeks to hold the requirement in abeyance. As stated in 37 CFR 1.85(a) (effective November 29, 2000), “Unless applicant is otherwise notified in an Office action, objections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance, and a request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action.” See also, “Changes to Implement Eighteen-Month Publication of Patent Applications; Final Rule,” 65 F.R. 57024, 57032, “Section 1.85.” (E) is not the most correct answer inasmuch as (A), (B), and (C) are not the most correct answers.

Answer 6

46. ANSWER: (E) is the correct answer. MPEP § 715. (A) is incorrect because an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131 is not appropriate where the reference is a prior U.S. patent to the same entity, claiming the same invention. MPEP § 715. (B) and (D) are each incorrect because an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131 is not appropriate where the reference is a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) as in (B) or a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as in (D). MPEP § 715. (C) is incorrect because an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131 is not appropriate where applicant has clearly admitted on the record that subject matter relied on in the reference is prior art. MPEP § 715.

Answer 7

11. ANSWER: (B) is the most correct answer. 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1) provides that a USPTO published application, based on an earlier international application, has prior art effect as of its international filing date, if the international application designated the United States, and was published in English. Because in the above fact pattern, the international application designated the United States and was published in English, the USPTO published application is entitled to its international filing date of February 27, 1997 for prior art purposes. (A) is wrong because the Japanese filing date is relevant under 35 U.S.C. § 119 only for priority, but not for prior art purposes. (C) and (E) are wrong because they recite prior art dates that are later than February 27, 1997. (D) is wrong because the amendments to § 102(e) by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 make the national stage entry date irrelevant for prior art purposes.

Answer 8

16. ANSWER: (E) is correct. A communication mailed within the time given for response in accordance with the procedure of 37 C.F.R. § 1.8 or 1.10 is considered timely filed even if it is received after the date a reply is due. In (E), the letter was not mail in accordance with 37 C.F.R.§ 1.8 or 1.10. Therefore, the letter would be considered filed when it is received in the USPTO. 37 C.F.R. § 1.311(a) states, “This three month period is not extendable.” Without complying with 37 C.F.R. § 1.8 or 1.10, the filing date of the letter is the date it was received in the USPTO, i.e., February 15, 2002, which is after the due date for payment of the issue fee, February 13, 2002. (A) is wrong because the reason given for abandonment is incorrect. The application becomes abandoned for the reasons expressed in (E). Although 37 C.F.R. § 1.311(b) provides that the submission of an incorrect issue fee (or other post-allowance fees set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.18) operates as a request to charge the correct issue fee, it does not change the fact that Jill’s letter is received by the USPTO after expiration of the non-extendable statutory three month period for payment of the issue fee. (B) is wrong because the application will become abandoned because Jill’s letter will be received by the USPTO after expiration of the nonApril extendable statutory three month period. (C) is wrong because the period for payment of the issue fee was not extendable by petition. The period is set by statute. 35 U.S.C. § 151. Abandonment occurred because Jill’s letter was received by the USPTO after expiration of the non-extendable statutory three month period. A petition for an extension of time was not available in this case. (D) is wrong because the reason for abandonment is wrong. Filing the form is optional. Although 37 C.F.R. § 1.311(b) provides that the submission of a completed Office-provided issue fee transmittal form, PTOL-85B, operates as a request to charge the correct issue fee (or other post-allowance fees set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.18) to any deposit account identified in a previously filed authorization to charge fees, it does not change the fact that Jill’s letter was received by the USPTO after expiration of the non-extendable statutory three month period.

Answer 9

24. ANSWER: (B) is the correct answer. It is inappropriate and injudicious to disregard any admissible evidence in any judicial proceeding. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 218 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The examiner has not analyzed the data in the declaration nor provided an explanation as to why the declaration did not overcome the rejection. Furthermore, the rejection has not been reviewed anew in light of the declaration. The examiner should have reweighed the entire merits of the prima facie case of obviousness in light of the data. In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Block should ask that the rejection be reconsidered and file a Notice of Appeal to safeguard his interest for a review of the rejection by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences if the rejection is not reconsidered. 37 C.F.R. § 1.116. (A) is wrong because there is no evidence that the examiner made any review of the declaration. (C) is wrong because whether or not Reference X provides an enabling disclosure for Block’s invention is immaterial to the question of obviousness. If there were to be a question of enabling disclosure for Reference X, it would be with respect to the “Q” ball relied upon by the examiner, not applicant’s “Y” ball. (D) is wrong because whether or not Reference X provides a written description for Block’s invention is immaterial to the question of obviousness raised by the examiner. (E) is wrong because the issue is one of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, not identity under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Given that the examiner has rejected the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and not under § 102, the examiner has already conceded that the “Q” and “Y” balls are not the same.

Answer 10

32. ANSWER: (B). Since Johnnie developed the material and James thought of the idea to use it in microwave ovens, they rightfully could be considered coinventors of the new article of manufacture. As to (A) and (C), public use began on when the experimental use ended on January 30, 2001, and occurs even when the public is unaware that they were walking on the developed material since the material was used in a public place. As to (D), even though James only took a second to think of the idea, he is entitled to receive a patent unless it was obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Nothing in the prior art revealed that it was obvious to use the material in microwave ovens. As to (E), the article of manufacture is not barred even though the floor material itself cannot be patented. Johnnie conducted an experimental use of the article from December 31, 2000 through January 30, 2001. Thereafter, Johnnie had one year from the end date of the experimental use to file a patent application for the article. Johnnie may file a patent application before January 30, 2002.

Answer 11

50. ANSWER: (C). The USPTO does not require or recommend a minimum or maximum number of dependent claims. 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c). (A) is a USPTO recommendation. See MPEP 608.01(m) (“Claims should preferably be arranged in order of scope so that the first claim presented is the least restrictive.”). (B) is a USPTO recommendation. See MPEP 608.01(m) (“Similarly, product and process claims should be separately grouped.”). (D) is a PTO recommendation. See MPEP 608.01(n), part IV. (E) is a USPTO requirement. See MPEP 608.01(m) (“Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period.”).

Answer 12

44. ANSWER: (E) is the correct answer. 37 C.F.R. § 1.48(b) (effective November 7, 2000); “Changes To Implement the Patent Business Goals; Final Rule,” 65 FR 54604, 54619 (September 8, 2000). As stated in 65 FR at 54619, middle column, “Sections 1.48(b) and (d) are revised to indicate that a request to correct the inventorship thereunder must be signed by a party as set forth in § 1.33(b)…” (A), (B), and (C) are provided for in 37 C.F.R. § 1.33(b). Thus (E), the most inclusive answer, is correct.

Answer 13

50. ANSWER: (A) is the most correct answer. 35 U.S.C. § 102(d). The foreign application need not be published, but the patent rights granted must be enforceable. MPEP § 706.02(e). (B), (C), (D) and (E) are required by 35 U.S.C. § 102(d).

Answer 14

All of the answers relate to the evidence of the close of prosecution and, hence, E is the answer since it includes all of them.

Answer 15

(B) is the most correct answer. See Ex parte Merz, 75 USPQ 296 (Bd. App. 1947) (holding that the “lapse of time between the completion or reduction to practice of an invention and the filing of an application thereon” is not relevant to an affidavit or declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b)); MPEP § 715.07(a). (A) is incorrect. Ex parte Hunter, 1889 C.D. 218, 49 O.G. 733 (Comm’r Pat. 1889); MPEP § 715.07(a). Applicant must show evidence of facts establishing diligence. (C) is incorrect. Ex parte Kantor, 177 USPQ 455 (Bd. App. 1958) (after conception has been clearly established, diligence must be considered prior to the effective date is clearly established, since diligence then comes into question); MPEP § 715.07(a). (D) is incorrect. MPEP § 715.07(c). 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(a) provides for the establishment of a date of completion of the invention in a NAFTA or WTO member country, as well as in the United States, an applicant can establish a date of completion in a NAFTA member country on or after December 8, 1993, the effective date of section 331 of Public Law 103 – 182, the North American Free Trade Agreement Act, and can establish a date of completion in a WTO member country other than a NAFTA member country on or after January 1, 1996, the effective date of section 531 of Public Law 103 – 465, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Not all countries are members of NAFTA or WTO, and prior invention in a foreign country cannot be shown without regard for when the reduction to practice occurred. (E) is incorrect. MPEP § 715.07. Actual reduction to practice generally, but not always, requires a showing that the apparatus actually existed and worked, “There are some devices so simple that a mere construction of them is all that is necessary to constitute reduction to practice.” In re Asahi/America Inc., 68 F.3d 442, 37 USPQ2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Newkirk v. Lulegian, 825 F.2d 1581, 3USPQ2d 1793 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and Sachs v. Wadsworth, 48 F.2d 928, 929, 9 USPQ 252, 253 (CCPA 1931). The claimed restraint coupling held to be so simple a device that mere construction of it was sufficient to constitute reduction to practice. Photographs, coupled with articles and a technical report describing the coupling in detail were sufficient to show reduction to practice.).

Answer 16

A provisional holds your place in line for whatever it includes in its disclosure. If you add more stuff when the non-provisional is filed you can still obtain benefit for whatever the two applications shared. A is the answer. ANSWER: (A). As to (B) and (E), an actual reduction to practice is not a necessary requirement for filing an application so long as the specification enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. However, (D) is incorrect, as a reduction to practice may not be established since the camera leaked. As to (C), a second provisional is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first provisional application. 35 U.S.C. § 111(h)(7).

Answer 17

18. Joint inventorship is based on conception only, not reduction to practice. Rocket conceived of the basic titanium ball and Torpedo came up with the laces. B is the answer. 19. Bizarre macabre facts. A PTO specialty. An estate rep. can sign for Rocket since Paper America is completely out of the picture. 20. Express Mail “date in” is the filing date. Answer D.

Answer 18

ANSWER: (E) is the correct answer. 35 U.S.C. § 251. The reissue permits Smarter to broaden the claimed subject (A) is incorrect. There must be copendency between the divisional application and the original application. 35 U.S.C. § 120. (B) This is incorrect, as 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, In re Orita, 550 F.2d 1277, 1280, 193 USPQ 145, 148 (CCPA 1977). (C) This is incorrect, as 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, Id., including a divisional reissue application. MPEP § 1402. (D) This is incorrect, as 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, Id.

Answer 19

ANSWER (E) The characterizing feature of a CIP is multiple filing dates. This question again illustrates that the PTO wants you to know this feature. C and D set forth that the claims are split between the two applications. Easy question if you remember the CIP axiom of multiple filing dates. (By the way it also has multiple 102(e) dates as a reference, but we’ll save that for another day!)

Answer 20

ANSWER: (D) is correct. It is the only answer that proposes to use a practice and procedure that is available to Einstein. 35 U.S.C. § 302. (A) This is incorrect because a statement by the currently named inventor as required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.324(b)(2) and the fee required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.20(b0 have not been filed. (B) This is incorrect, as in A.F. Stoddard & Co. v. Dann, 564 F.2d 556, 567 n.16, 195 USPQ 97, 106 n.16 (D.C. Cir. 1977) wherein correction of inventorship from sole inventor A to sole inventor B was permitted in a reissue application, does not apply here, as a reissue application can only be filed by the inventor(s) or assignee(s). See MPEP § 1412.04. (C) This answer is incorrect because it refers to sales, as opposed to patents or printed publications. (E) The option of requesting inter partes reexamination is not available in this scenario, as the patent in question issued from an original application which was filed prior to the critical date of November 29, 1999. Only patents which issued from original applications filed in the United States on or after November 29, 1999, are eligible for inter partes reexamination (37 C.F.R. § 1.913).

Answer 21

38. C is obviously wrong since it is a CPA and not a 53(b) filing. B is wrong since the PTO will presume Jones signed on behalf of Smith, even though Smith’s signature is missing. A and D are okay.

Answer 22

1. ANSWER: Choice (C) is the correct answer. MPEP § 409.03(a), and 37 C.F.R. § 1.47(a). 37 C.F.R. § 1.47(a) provides, “If a joint inventor refuses to join in an application for patent or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, the application may be made by the other inventor on behalf of himself or herself and the nonsigning inventor. The oath or declaration in such an application must be accompanied by a petition including proof of the pertinent facts, the fee set forth in § 1.17(h), and the last known address of the nonsigning inventor. The nonsigning inventor may subsequently join in the application by filing an oath or declaration complying with § 1.63.” Choices (A), (B), and (D) are each incorrect because they are not provided for by 37 C.F.R. § 1.47(a). MPEP § 409.03 (b), in pertinent part provides, “Where 37 C.F.R. § 1.47(a) is available, application cannot be made under 37 C.F.R. § 1.47(b).” Choice (E) is incorrect because choices (A), (B), and (D) are each incorrect.

Answer 23

2. ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. See, “Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, ‘Written Description’ Requirement,” 66 F.R. 1099, 1105 (Jan. 5, 2001) left column, first paragraph. “The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature that is not described in the specification and is not conventional in the art or known to one of ordinary skill in the art.” (A) is not the most correct answer. See, “Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, ‘Written Description’ Requirement,” 66 F.R. 1099, 1104 (Jan. 5, 2001) right column, last paragraph. Describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention is a means of showing possession of the invention. (B) is not the most correct answer. See, “Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, ‘Written Description’ Requirement,” 66 F.R. 1099, 1104 (Jan. 5, 2001) right column, last paragraph. (D) is not the most correct answer. See, “Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, ‘Written Description’ Requirement,” 66 F.R. 1099, 1105 (Jan. 5, 2001), left column, second paragraph, which states, “While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claim limitations must be supported by in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure.” (E) is not the most correct answer. See, “Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, ‘Written Description’ Requirement,” 66 F.R. 1099, 1105 (Jan. 5, 2001), left column, second paragraph, which states, “An amendment to correct an obvious error does not constitute new matter where one skilled in the art would not only recognize the existence of the error in the specification, but also recognize the appropriate correction.”

Answer 24

6. ANSWER: (E) is the correct answer. MPEP § 715. (A) is incorrect because an affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 is not appropriate where the reference is a prior U.S. patent to the same entity, claiming the same invention. MPEP § 715. (B) and (D) are each incorrect because an affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 is not appropriate where the reference is a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) as in (B) or a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as in (D). MPEP § 715. (C) is incorrect because an affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 is not appropriate where applicant has clearly admitted on the record that subject matter relied on in the reference is prior art. MPEP § 715.

Answer 25

8. ANSWER: Choice (B) is the correct answer. 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.” Choices (A) and (C) are each incorrect. MPEP § 804.02, reads, “The use of a 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 affidavit in overcoming a double patenting rejection is inappropriate…37 C.F.R. § 1.131 is inapplicable if the claims of the application and the patent are ‘directed to substantially the same invention.’ It is also inapplicable if there is a lack of ‘patentable distinctness’ between the claimed subject matter.” Choice (C) is further incorrect since a nonstatutory double patenting rejection can be based on the claims not being patentably distinct. MPEP § 804, subpart (II)(B)(1). Choice (D) is incorrect because MPEP § 804, subpart (I)(A) reads, “Double patenting may exist between an issued patent and an application filed by the same inventive entity, or by an inventive entity having a common inventor with the patent.” Choice (E) is incorrect because choices (A), (C), and (D) are each incorrect.

Answer 26

Variation of 12 (filing a reissue outside the two year limitation is fine if there is no broadening; just add inventor)…same concept tested. 12. ANSWER: 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. Answers (A) and (B) are therefore both correct, and (E) is the best response. Although a certificate of correction may be used to correct inventorship where all parties are in agreement, the facts of the question show that Inventor A is not in agreement. Choice (C) is thus not an available option for MegaCorp. Choice (D) is incorrect because the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.48 are not available to correct inventorship in an issued patent.

Answer 27

17. ANSWER: (C) is correct. 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.” (A) is wrong. MPEP § 706.02(a) states, “A magazine is effective as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as of the date it reached the addressee and not the date it was placed in the mail.” (B) is wrong. MPEP § 707.05(f) states, “For the purpose of anticipation predicated upon prior knowledge under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) the above noted declassified material may be taken as prima facie evidence of such prior knowledge as of its printing date even though such material was classified at that time.” (D) and (E) are wrong. The AIPA amended 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) to provide that U.S. patents, U.S. application publications, and certain international application publications can be used as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on their earliest effective filing date against applications filed on or after November 29, 2000, and applications filed prior to November 29, 2000 which have been voluntarily published. MPEP § 706.02(a).

Answer 28

18. ANSWER: (E) is the most correct answer. Thomas may rely on activities in both Germany (a WTO member country) and Canada (a NAFTA country) in establishing a date of invention prior to publication of the Saskatoon Times article or in establishing priority. 35 U.S.C. § 104; see also MPEP 715.01(c).

Answer 29

21. ANSWER: (D) is correct. (A) is wrong. 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(e)(2); MPEP § 103, application files are available upon request because the divisional application refers to the abandoned parent application, and the division issued as a patent, causing the application to be open to inspection. (B), (C) and (E) are wrong and (D) is correct. MPEP § 301.01.

Answer 30

30. All answers accepted.

Answer 31

34. ANSWER: (A) is correct and (B), (C), (D) and (E) are wrong. MPEP § 601.01(d).

Answer 32

46. ANSWER: (D) is correct. 37 C.F.R. §1.99(e). (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.” Therefore, answer (D) is correct and answers (A), (B), and (C) are incorrect. (E) is wrong because 37 C.F.R. § 1.99(e) recites, “A submission by a member of the public to a pending published application that does not comply with the requirements of this section will be returned or discarded.”

Answer 33

49. ANSWER: Choice (E) is the correct answer. MPEP § 502.01, and 37 C.F.R. § 1.6(d)(3). MPEP § 502.01 reads, “The date of receipt accorded to any correspondence permitted to be sent by facsimile transmission, including a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.53(d), is the date the complete transmission is received by an Office facsimile unit…An applicant filing a CPA by facsimile transmission must include an authorization to charge the basic filing fee to a deposit account or to a credit card.” Choice (A) is incorrect because 37 C.F.R. § 1.6(d) states, “Facsimile transmissions are not permitted and, if submitted, will not be accorded a date of receipt in the following situations: …(5) A request for reexamination under §1.510 or § 1.913.” Choice (B) is incorrect because 37 C.F.R. § 1.6(d) also states, “Facsimile transmissions are not permitted and, if submitted, will not be accorded a date of receipt in the following situations: …(4) Drawings submitted under §§ 1.81, 1.83 through 1.85, 1.152, 1.165, 1.174, 1.437, 2.51, 2.52, or 2.72.” Choice (C) is incorrect because 37 C.F.R. § 1.6(d) also states, “Facsimile transmissions are not permitted and, if submitted, will not be accorded a date of receipt in the following situations: …(3) Correspondence which cannot receive the benefit of the certificate of mailing or transmission as specified in 1.8(a)(2)(i)(A)…” 37 C.F.R. § 1.8(a)(2)(i)(A) reads, “The filing of a national patent application specification and drawing or other correspondence for the purpose of obtaining an application filing date…” Choice (D) is incorrect because 37 C.F.R. § 1.6(d) also states, “Facsimile transmissions are not permitted and, if submitted, will not be accorded a date of receipt in the following situations: …(6) Correspondence to be filed in a patent application subject to a secrecy order under §§ 5.1 through 5.5 of this chapter and directly related to the secrecy order content of the application.” Facsimile transmissions not permitted and, if submitted, will NOT be accorded a date of receipt in the following situations: 1) Correspondence requiring a person’s signature 2) filing of a national patent application specification and drawing or other correspondence for the purpose of obtaining an application filing date, 4) Papers filed in contested cases before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences; 5) The filing of an international application for patent; The filing of a copy of the international application and the basic national fee necessary to enter the national stage 6) Color drawings 7) A request for reexamination 8) Correspondence to be filed in a patent application subject to a secrecy directly related to the secrecy order content of the application 9) In contested cases before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences except as the Board may expressly authorize EXCEPT that a continued prosecution application under § 1.53(d) may be transmitted to the Office by facsimile;

Answer 34

50. ANSWER: (A) is correct. MPEP § 1412.03. In re Doll, 164 USPQ 218, 220 (CCPA 1970). (B) is wrong because 35 U.S.C. § 251 prescribes a 2-year limit for filing applications for broadening reissues. (C) is wrong because although Switzer v. Sockman, 142 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1964), holds that while a reissue application filed on the 2-year anniversary date from the patent grant is considered to be filed within 2 years of the patent grant, it is necessary that an intent to broaden be indicated in the reissue application within the two years from the patent grant. MPEP § 1412.03. (D) is wrong because a proposal for broadened claims must be made in the parent reissue application within two years from the grant of the original patent MPEP § 1412.03. In re Graff, 42 USPQ2d 1471, 1473-74 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (E) is wrong because there was no intent to broaden indicated within the two years. MPEP § 1412.03. In re Fotland, 228 USPQ 193 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Answer 35

ANSWER: (C) is the most correct. Corona v. Dovan 273 U.S. 692, 1928 CD 252 (1928); MPEP § 2138.05 under the heading “Requirements To Establish Actual Reduction To Practice.” (A) is incorrect. MPEP § 2138.05, under the heading “Requirements To Establish Actual Reduction To Practice.” The same evidence sufficient to establish a constructive reduction to practice is not necessarily sufficient to establish actual reduction to practice, which requires a showing of the invention in a physical or tangible form containing every element of the count. Wetmore v. Quick, 536 F.2d 937, 942 190 USPQ 223 227 (CCPA 1976). (B) is incorrect. MPEP § 2138.05, under the heading “Constructive Reduction To Practice Requires Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112, First Paragraph.” Kawai v. Metlesics, 489 F.2d 880, 886, 178 USPQ 158, 163 (CCPA 1973). (D) is incorrect. Keizer v. Bradley, 270 F.2d 396, 397, 123 USPQ 215, 216 (CCPA 1959) (the diligence of 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) does not require “an inventor or his attorney to drop all other work and concentrate on the particular invention involved”); MPEP § 2138.06. (E) is incorrect. The diligence of a practitioner in preparing and filing an application inures to the benefit of the inventor. See MPEP § 2138.06, under the heading “Diligence Required In Preparing And Filing Patent Application.” Haskell v. Coleburne, 671 F.2d 1362, 213 USPQ 192,195 (CCPA 1982) (six days to execute and file application was acceptable).

Answer 36

ANSWER: (A) and (D) are accepted as the correct answers. Regarding answer (A), see 35 U.S.C. § 122(b)(2)(B)(iii); 37 CFR § 1.213; MPEP § 901.03 for information on nonpublication requests. See 37 CFR § 1.137(f); MPEP § 711.03(c), under the heading “3. Abandonment for Failure to Notify the Office of a Foreign Filing After Submission of a Non-Publication Request.” (D) was also accepted because the statement characterizes the status of the application as being abandoned, though the application has not necessarily attained abandoned status. The course of action postulated in (D) is a proper reply if the application was abandoned. Accordingly, (D) was accepted as a correct answer under these circumstances. (B) is incorrect. The notice of foreign filing can be filed as late as 45 days after the foreign filing before the U.S. application becomes abandoned. (C) is incorrect. See MPEP § 608.04(a). The improvements would constitute new matter and new matter cannot be added to the disclosure of an application after the filing date of the application. (E) is not correct. The applicant was required to provide notice of foreign filing within 45 days of filing in Japan, and two months have passed. As a result, a petition to revive under 37 CFR § 1.137(b) is required for examination to continue. Also see 37 CFR § 1.137(f).

Answer 37

ANSWER: (E) is the most correct answer. MPEP § 1205, under the heading “Appeal By Patent Applicant,” states that “[a] notice of appeal may be filed after any of the claims has been twice rejected, regardless of whether the claim(s) has/have been finally rejected. The limitation of ‘twice or finally…rejected’ does not have to be related to a particular application. For example, if any claim was rejected in a parent application, and the claim is again rejected in a continuing application, then applicant will be entitled to file an appeal in the continuingapplication, even if the claim was rejected only once in the continuing application.” (A), (B), (C), and (D) are not the most correct answer because a notice of appeal can be filed in a continuing application where at least one of the rejected claims was twice rejected, and one of the rejections may occur in the parent application.

Answer 38

ANSWER: (B) is the most correct answer. See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) and 2145. The prior art exception in 35 U.S.C. § 103(c) is applicable because the Smith reference is only prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), (f), or (g), was applied in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and was commonly owned at the time Potter made the invention claimed by Potter. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1). Answer (A) is not a correct answer in that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections are based on a combination of references. See MPEP § 2145. Answer (C) is not a correct answer. An affirmation that the affiant has never seen the invention before is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 716. Answer (D) is not a correct answer. Invention must be proved prior to the effective filing date of Smith, which is April 10, 2001. See MPEP § 715. Answer (E) is not a correct answer. A terminal disclaimer and affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR § 1.130 are not proper because the Potter application and the Smith reference are not claiming the same patentable invention. See MPEP § 706.02(k).

Answer 39

ANSWER: (D) is the most correct answer. See MPEP § 1211.02. (D) is not a proper basis for remand because the Board has no authority to require the examiner to consider an affidavit which has not been entered after final rejection and which was filed while the application was pending before the examiner. Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.195, “[a]ffidavits…submitted after the case has been appealed will not be admitted without a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they were not earlier presented.” The facts are silent regarding whether such a showing was made. However, as discussed in MPEP § 715.09, “Review of an examiner’s refusal to enter [and consider] an affidavit as untimely is by petition and not by appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. In re Deters, 515 F.2d 1152, 185 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1975); Ex parte Hale, 49 USPQ 209 (Bd. App. 1941).” Thus, remand by the Board cannot be expected. Support for each of answers (A), (B), (C) and (E) is specifically provided for in MPEP § 1211.

Answer 40

ANSWER: (A) is the most correct answer. See MPEP § 512, which states “The Certificate of Mailing procedure does not apply to papers mailed in a foreign country.” (B) is not correct. See MPEP § 512. Certificate of transmission procedure applies to correspondence transmitted to the Office from a foreign country and an amendment is not prohibited from being transmitted by facsimile and is not precluded from receiving the benefits under 37 CFR § 1.8. (C) is not correct. See MPEP § 609, under the heading “Time for Filing.” An IDS will be considered to have been filed on the date of mailing if accompanied by a properly executed certificate of mailing or facsimile transmission under 37 CFR § 1.8. (D) is not correct. See MPEP § 706.07(h) Comparison Chart. An RCE is entitled to the benefit of a certificate of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR § 1.8. (E) is not correct. See MPEP § 1206. An appeal brief is entitled to the benefit of a certificate of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR § 1.8 because it is required to be filed in the Office within a set time period which is 2 months from the date of appeal.

Answer 41

ANSWER: (A) and (E) are accepted as correct answers. Regarding (E), see MPEP §2131. To anticipate a claim, the elements of a reference “must be arranged as required by the claim…” See MPEP §2131, citing In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In (E), the on/off switch of Lancer’s toothbrush is arranged differently that that of the claimed toothbrush. (A) is accepted as correct because the given facts do not specify the location of the power supply as being within the toothbrush. Though the description of the toothbrush as being electric can imply as inherent source of power, it may also imply an external power source fro the electric toothbrush. Accordingly, (A) is also accepted as a correct answer in the circumstances. (B) is incorrect because evidence of secondary considerations, such as commercial success, is irrelevant to a 36 USC § 102 rejection. See MPEP §2131.04. (C) is incorrect. “’Arguments that the alleged anticipatory priori art…’teaches away from the invention’…[are] note ‘germane’ to a rejection under section 102.’” MPEP § 2131.05 (quoting Twin Disc, Inc. v. United States, 231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl. Ct. 1986)). (D) is incorrect. “The term ‘others’ in 35 USC 102(a) refers to any entity which is different from the inventive entity. The entity need only differ by one person to be ‘by others.’ This holds true for all types of references eligible as prior art under 35 USC m102(a) including publications…” MPEP §2132. Here, because Lancer is only one of there inventors of the claim, the patent is by others. Some recent test takers have indicated that this question has been rephrased to correct any ambiguity in answer (A) leaving (E) as the only correct answer.

Answer 42

ANSWER: (A) is the most correct answer. MPEP § 1214.06, under the heading “Examiner Sustained in Whole or in Part.” Under the heading “No Claims Stand Allowed” it states “Claims indicated as allowable prior to appeal except for their dependency from rejected claims will be treated as if they were rejected.” (B) and (C) are not the most correct answers. These options would apply to applications where the Board reversed the rejection of the dependent claims and affirmed the rejection of the independent claim. (D) is not correct. The Board does not render a decision on objected to claims. See 37 CFR § 1.191(c). (E) is not correct because the mailing of a Board decision does not abandoned an application. See 37 CFR § 1.197(a).

Answer 43

ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and the prior art are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP § 2144.05. In Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), a claim recited a titanium base alloy consisting essentially of 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% maximum iron, and the balance titanium. A prior art reference described two similar alloys: (i) one with 0.25% molybdenum, 0.75% nickel, and balance titanium; and (ii) another with 0.31% molybdenum, 0.94% nickel, and balance titanium. The court held: As admitted by appellee’s affidavit evidence from James A. Hall, the Russian article discloses two alloys having compositions very close to that of claim 3, which is 0.3% Mo and 0.8% Ni, balance titanium. The two alloys in the prior art have 0.25% Mo-0.75% Ni and 0.31% Mo-0.94% Ni, respectively. The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Appellee produced no evidence to rebut that prima facie case. The specific alloy of claim 3 must therefore be considered to have been obvious from known alloys. Id. Thus, (A) is incorrect. (B) and (D) are incorrect because a claim is anticipated by a prior art reference only when the prior art discloses, either expressly or inherently, every limitation of the claimed invention. (E) is incorrect because (C) is correct.

Answer 44

ANSWER: (B) is the most correct answer. MPEP § 1208.01 states: “Any allegation that an examiner’s answer contains an impermissible new ground of rejection is waived if not timely (37 CFR 1.181(f)) raised by way of a petition under 37 CFR 1.181(a).” Thus, to avoid waiver of the right to contest the examiner’s action, the appellant must file a timely petition. (A) is incorrect because the question of whether an answer contains a new ground of rejection is a petitionable, not appealable, matter. See MPEP § 1201. (C) is incorrect because an amendment or new evidence is needed to overcome the new ground of rejection and merely presenting arguments will not succeed. (D) is incorrect because the entry of the amendment or evidence is subject to the provisions of 37 CFR §§ 1.116 and 1.195 and there is no assurance that the examiner will approve entry. (E) is incorrect because it will constitute a waiver on the question of whether an impermissible new ground of rejection has been entered.

Answer 45

ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. As stated in MPEP § 709, under the heading “Request By The Applicant,” subheading “Request for Suspension Under 37 CFR 1.103(b) or (c),” “The Office will not grant the requested suspension of action unless the following requirements are met: (A) the request must be filed with the filing of a CPA or an RCE…(1) if the request is filed with an RCE, the RCE must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.114, i.e., the RCE must be accompanied by a submission and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e). Note that the payment of the RCE filing fee may not be deferred and the request for suspension cannot substitute for the submission.” The RCE was improper because no submission in reply to the outstanding Office action accompanied the RCE. Since the RCE was improper, the Office will not recognize the request for suspension. The time period set in the final rejection continues to run from the mail date of the Office action. Since the Office action did not set a period for reply, applicant has a maximum period of six months for reply. A reply was due on February 8, 2003. Since the RCE was improper and the Office did not recognize the request for suspension, the application became abandoned at Midnight of February 8, 2003. (A), (B) and (E) are not correct. As stated in MPEP § 706.07(h), under the heading “Submission Requirement,” “If a reply to an Office action under 35 U.S.C. 132 is outstanding, the submission must meet the reply requirements of 37 CFR 1.111. See 37 CFR 1.114(c).” An RCE that is not accompanied by a submission is an improper RCE. As stated in MPEP § 706.07(h), under the heading “Initial Processing,” subheading “Treatment of Improper RCE,” “An improper RCE will not operate to toll the running of any time period set in the previous Office action for reply to avoid abandonment of the application.” The period for filing a proper reply was six months inasmuch as no shortened statutory period for reply was set. A proper reply to the final rejection was not filed. Therefore, the application went abandoned for failure to file a proper reply to the final rejection. (D) is not correct. As set forth in MPEP § 706.07(f) under the heading “Examiner’s Amendments,” paragraph (H), “[a]n examiner’s amendment may not be made more than 6 months from the date of the final Office action, as the application would be abandoned at that point by operation of law.”

Answer 46

ANSWER: (D) is the most correct answer. See 35 USC §§ 102(e) and 103(c); MPEP § 706.02(l)(1). The prior art exception in 35 U.S.C. § 103(c) only applies to references that are only prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), (f), or (g), and that are applied in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In this situation, the Smith reference was applied in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and not under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1). Therefore, the reply in answer (D) would not overcome the rejection. Answer (A) is a proper reply in that it addresses the examiner’s rejection by specifically pointing out why the examiner failed to make a prima facie showing. See MPEP § 706.02(b). (B) is incorrect inasmuch as it is a proper reply. See MPEP § 706.02(b). Answer (C) is incorrect inasmuch as it is a proper reply. See MPEP 706.02(b). Answer (E) is not a correct answer because answers (A), (B) and (C) all are replies that are in accordance with the USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP.

Answer 47

ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. See MPEP § 1206, specifically the Examiner Note for Form Paragraph 12.69.01 (“This form paragraph should be used only when no supporting reasons are presented in the brief.”). If the examiner disagrees with the reasons given, the reason for disagreement should be addressed in the Examiner’s Answer. As discussed at MPEP § 1208, in the Examiner Note 2 for Form Paragraph 12.55.01 “If the brief includes a statement that a grouping of claims does not stand or fall together but does not provide reasons,using form paragraphs 12.69, 12.69.01 and 12.78.” As discussed at MPEP § 1208, in the Examiner Note for Form Paragraph 12.55.02, if the examiner disagrees with appellant’s statement in the brief that certain claims do not stand or fall together, the examiner explains in the examiner’s answer why the claim grouping listed in the brief is not agreed with and why, if appropriate, e.g., the claims as listed by the appellant are not separately patentable. Answer (A) is incorrect. See MPEP § 1206, Form paragraph 12.17. The Appeal Brief was filed less than seven months after the Notice of Appeal was filed. The applicant should be notified of the deficiency and provided an opportunity to request a five-month extension of time. Answer (B) is incorrect. See MPEP § 1206, Form paragraph 12.12. Answer (D) is incorrect. Where the applicant omits the statement required by 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) yet presents arguments in the argument section of the brief, the applicant should be notified of the noncompliance and given time to correct the deficiency. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7); and MPEP § 1206, under the heading “Appeal Brief Content,” subheading “7. Grouping of Claims,” wherein it states, “Where, however, the appellant (A) omits the statement required by 37 CFR 1.192(c)(7) yet presents arguments in the argument section of the brief…the appellant should be notified of the noncompliance as per 37 CFR 1.192(d). Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991); Ex parte Ohsumi, 21 USPQ2d 1020 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).” See also MPEP § 1206, under the heading “Review of Brief By Examiner,” wherein it states that “if a brief is filed which does not comply with all the requirements of [37 CFR § 1.192](c), the appellant will be notified of the reasons for noncompliance. Appellant will be given the longest of any of the following time periods to correct the defect(s): (A) 1 month or 30 days from the mailing of the notification of non-compliance, whichever is longer; (B) within the time period for reply to the action from which appeal has been taken; or (C) within 2 months from the date of the notice of appeal under 37 CFR 1.191.” Answer (E) is incorrect. MPEP § 1206, under the heading “Appeal Brief Content,” states “Where an appeal brief fails to address any ground of rejection, appellant shall be notified by the examiner that he or she must correct the defect by filing a brief (in triplicate) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.192(c).”

Answer 48

ANSWER: (D) is the most correct answer. See 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). As explained in MPEP § 901.01, the “matter canceled from the application file wrapper of a U.S. patent may be used as prior art as of the patent date in that it then constitutes prior public knowledge under 35 U.S.C. 102(a), In re Lund, 376 F.2d 982, 153 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1967). See also MPEP 2127 and 2136.02.” (A) is incorrect. 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). As stated in MPEP § 901.01, “Canceled matter in the application file of a U.S. patent is not a proper reference as of the filing date under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), see Ex parte Stalego, 154 USPQ 52, 53 (Bd. App. 1966).” (B) is incorrect. Asstated in MPEP § 901.02, “In re Heritage, 182 F.2d 639, 86 USPQ 160 (CCPA 1950), holds that where a patent refers to and relies on the disclosure of a copending abandoned application, such disclosure is available as a reference. See also In re Lund, 376 F.2d 982, 153 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1967).” (C) is incorrect. As MPEP § 901.02 indicates, where the reference patent claims the benefit of a copending but abandoned application which discloses subject matter in common with the patent, and the abandoned application has an enabling disclosure of the common subject matter and claimed matter in the reference patent, the effective date of the reference as to the common subject matter is the filing date of the abandoned application. In re Switzer, 77 USPQ 1, 612 O.G. 11 (CCPA 1948); Ex parte Peterson, 63 USPQ 99 (Bd. App. 1944); and Ex parte Clifford, 49 USPQ 152 (Bd. App. 1940).” (E) is incorrect. As stated in MPEP § 901.05, “In general, a foreign patent, the contents of its application, or segments of its content should not be cited as a reference until its date of patenting or publication can be confirmed by an examiner’s review of a copy of the document.”

Answer 49

3. ANSWER: (B) is the most correct answer. MPEP § 713.01, under the heading “Scheduling And Conducting An Interview,” states “[a]n interview should be had only when the nature of the case is such that the interview could serve to develop and clarify specific issues and lead to a mutual understanding between the examiner and the applicant, and thereby advance the prosecution of the application.” (A) is incorrect. 37 CFR § 1.133(a)(2); MPEP § 713.02. Section 713.02 states that although “[a] request for an interview prior to the first Office action is ordinarily granted in continuing or substitute applications[,] [a] request for an interview in all other applications before the first action is untimely and will not be acknowledged if written, or granted if oral. 37 CFR 1.133(a).” (C) is incorrect. MPEP § 713.03. Larry is only sounding out the examiner and has no authority to commit Joe to any agreement reached with the examiner. (D) is incorrect. MPEP § 713.09. Jane has no right to an interview following the final rejection. Although such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration, interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search should be denied. (E) is incorrect because (D) is incorrect.

Answer 50

ANSWER: (B) is the most correct 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).

Answer 51

ANSWER: (C) is the best answer. MPEP §§ 2107.01 and 2107.02. MPEP § 2107.01, under the heading “Therapeutic or Pharmacological Utility,” cites In re Chilowsky, 229 F.2d 457, 461-2, 108 USPQ 321, 325 (CCPA 1956); In re Gazave, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967); and Nelson v. Bowler, 626 F.2d 853, 856, 206 USPQ 881, 883 (CCPA 1980) as taking the position that “[i]nventions asserted to have utility in the treatment of human or animal disorders are subject to the same legal requirements for utility as inventions in any other field of technology.” MPEP § 2107.02, under the heading “The Claimed Invention Is The Focus Of The Utility Requirement,” states “. . . regardless of the category of invention that is claimed (e.g., product or process), an applicant need only make one credible assertion of specific utility for the claimed invention to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112; additional statements of utility, even if not “credible,” do not render the claimed invention lacking in utility. See, e.g., . . . In re Gottlieb, 328 F.2d 1016, 1019, 140 USPQ 665, 668 (CCPA 1964) (‘Having found that the antibiotic is useful for some purpose, it becomes unnecessary to decide whether it is in fact useful for the other purposes ‘indicated’ in the specification as possibly useful.’).” The issue is whether Mr. Bloc has disclosed a specific utility for the claimed compound Y sufficient to satisfy the practical utility requirement of 35 U.S.C § 101. According to the set of facts, we know that compound Y is an intermediate in the chemical manufacture of synthetic Z. We are given two utilities for synthetic Z: 1) alleviating pain, a utility it shares with the natural form of Z; and, 2) curing cancer. The examiner focuses on the disclosure that synthetic Z is a cure for cancer. Even if one were to agree that synthetic Z’s ability to cure cancer amounts to an incredible utility, a claim to the intermediate compound Y would not run afoul of the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101 where another substantial, credible and specific utility is alternatively demonstrated. Here, the specification discloses that synthetic Z, like the natural form of Z, alleviates pain. The alleviation of pain is another substantial, credible and specific utility and serves to give compound Y an alternative utility to that of being used to make a cancer-curing substance. An applicant need not show that all disclosed utilities are credible. An applicant need only show that one of the disclosed utilities is in fact credible. In re Gottlieb, supra. The establishment of a credible, substantial and specific utility renders the disclosure of an additional incredible utility superfluous, and therefore ultimately irrelevant. Accordingly, Mr. Bloc’s best course of action is to make the argument that he has disclosed another substantial, credible, and specific utility, notwithstanding the disclosure of curing cancer. (A) is not the most correct answer. The advice could prevent him from getting a patent to which he may be entitled. (B) is not the most correct answer. A cure for cancer is ostensibly incredible. It is hardly a response to the examiner’s rejection to ask for the chance to prove one can cure cancer. (D) is not the most correct answer. While it is true that the utility requirement is addressed to the claimed invention, which here is compound Y not synthetic Z, it is not enough to respond by repeating what the invention is but, rather, to show that the invention has indeed a substantial, credible, and specific utility. Whatever is claimed as the invention, it must comply with the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here the examiner states that the claim does not comply, as evidenced by the incredible utility of the final product. It is Mr. Bloc’s responsibility to then show that compound Y does comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101 by showing that its end product has a substantial, credible, and specific utility. (E) is not the most correct answer. Noting that synthetic Z is modeled on natural Z does not go far enough in establishing a substantial, credible and specific utility for compound Y. It is synthetic Z’s therapeutic ability to alleviate pain which establishes the necessary alternative utility.

Answer 52

8. ANSWER: (D) is the most correct 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 4 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).

Answer 53

9. ANSWER: The most correct answer is (E). See MPEP § 201.11, under the heading “VI. When Not Entitled To Benefit Earlier Of Filing Date, ” states “[a]ny claim in am continuation-in-part application which is directed solely to subject matter adequately disclosed under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent nonprovisional application. However, if a claim in a continuation-in-part application recites a feature which was not disclosed or adequately supported by a proper disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application, but which was first introduced or adequately supported in the continuation-in-part application such a claim is entitled only to the filing date of the continuation-in-part application. See In re Chu, 66. F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995) and Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” Accordingly, claims 1-10 are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application, but claims 11-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application because claims 11-20 recite an improved capacitor, which was not disclosed in the first application. Claims 1-10 have an effective filing date earlier than the publication date of the article. Claims 11-20 have a filing date later than the publication date of the article. For 35 U.S.C. 102(a) to apply, the reference must have a publication date earlier in time than the effective filing date of the application. See MPEP 706.02(a), paragraph “III. 35 U.S.C. 102(a).” Thus, answers (A)-(D) are incorrect.

Answer 54

ANSWER: (E) is the most correct 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).

Answer 55

ANSWER: (A) is the most correct answer. 35 USC § 251, MPEP §1402 (5th paragraph). MPEP § 1402 states that one on 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 tears from the patent issue date. (B) is incorrect since the 4th paragraph of 35 USC §251 states that no reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims 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 USC § 120 to a parent application, a divisional application must be filed while the parent patent application is still pending.

Answer 56

ANSWER: (E) is the most correct answer. As set forth in MPEP § 2131.05, “‘Arguments that the alleged anticipatory prior art is ‘nonanalogous art’ or ‘teaches away from the invention’ or is not recognized as solving the problem solved by the claimed invention, [are] not ‘germane’ to a rejection under section 102.’ Twin Disc, Inc. v. United States, 231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl.Ct.1986) (quoting In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982)). A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. The question whether a reference ‘teaches away’ from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed.Cir.1999).” Therefore, answers (A) through (D) are incorrect. See also MPEP § 706.02(b) as to ways to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Answer 57

ANSWER: (D) is the most correct 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.

Answer 58

Argue the limitation nor its equivalent is present in the prior art. ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1849 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in banc), and MPEP § 2181, under the heading “Written Description Necessary To Support A Claim Limitation Which Invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph,” “step” plus function limitations shall be construed to cover the corresponding acts disclosed in the specification and their equivalents. Accordingly, the step plus function imitation correspondingly includes acts (1)-(5) and their equivalents. Thus, in order to anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose each and every act, or its equivalent, for the step plus function. If the reference is shown to not disclose one of the acts, or its equivalents, then the reference fails to anticipate, which is the answer set forth in (C). Thus, (C) is the most complete answer. (A) is not the most complete answer because acts (1)-(4) are disclosed in the reference and the equivalent of act (5) has to be dealt with, i.e., the equivalent of continuing to walk may still be met by the reference unless the applicant shows through argument that the reference also fails to contain any equivalent for act (5). Thus, the most complete answer is (C) as compared to (A). (B) is not the most correct answer because once act (5) is removed from the specification, the prior art reference clearly anticipates (since it otherwise expressly has acts (1)-(4) and the other claim limitations) under the above recited facts absent act (5) in the specification. See Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1193, 29 USPQ2d at 1849; MPEP § 2181. (D) is not the most complete answer the prior art still anticipates the claim. (E) is not the most correct answer because it includes two incorrect answer choices, (B) and (D).

Answer 59

Negative limitation is usually OK, but here is “new matter” so negative limitation is wrong answer here. Correct answer is (D) An amendment to the claim substituting for the term “means for pulling the door open” the structure of a handle and a knob. ANSWER: (D) is the most correct 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 answerbecause the amendment would raise a new matter issue.

Answer 60

ANSWER: (D) is the correct 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 pass 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 cancelled. (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. Test takers also report a second variant that asks about how the applicant can withdraw his appeal once the Examiner’s Answer was filed and have some new prior art considered; and you had to choose between filing an RCE and filing a Continuation.

Answer 61

ANSWER: (D) is the most correct 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.

Answer 62

ANSWER: (E) is the most correct answer. MPEP § 1002.02(c) identifies among the matters petitionable to and decided by the Technology Center Directors “Petitions from a final decision of examiner requiring restriction in patent applications, 37 CFR 1.144, MPEP § 818.03(c).” Hence (A), and (C), which provide for review before the Board of Patent Appealsand Interferences are clearly erroneous. Since the restriction requirement is not yet “final” no review is possible at this juncture. Answers (A), (B), (C), and (D) are also incorrect because no claim is under rejection hence no appeal is possible. See MPEP § 1205, which provides that under 37 CFR 1.191(a), an applicant for a patent dissatisfied with the primary examiner’s decision in the second or final rejection of his or her claims may appeal to the Board for review of the examiner’s rejection by filing a notice of appeal and the required fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(b) within the time period provided under 37 CFR 1.134.and 1.136. A notice of appeal may be filed after any of the claims has been twice rejected, regardless of whether the claim(s) has/have been finally rejected. The limitation of “twice or finally…rejected” does not have to be related to a particular application. For example, if any claim was rejected in a parent application, and the claim is again rejected in a continuing application, then applicant will be entitled to file an appeal in the continuing application, even if the claim was rejected only once in the continuing application.

Answer 63

ANSWER: (A) is the most correct answer. See 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii); 37 CFR § 1.213; MPEP § 901.03 for information on nonpublication requests. See 37 CFR § 1.137(f); MPEP § 711.03(c), under the heading “3. Abandonment for Failure to Notify the Office of a Foreign Filing After Submission of a Non-Publication Request.” (B) is incorrect. The notice of foreign filing can be filed as late as 45 days after the foreign filing before the U.S. application becomes abandoned. (C) is incorrect. See MPEP § 608.04(a). The improvements would constitute new matter and new matter cannot be added to the disclosure of an application after the filing date of the application. (D) is not correct. The applicant is required to provide notice of foreign filing, not merely rescind the nonpublication request within the appropriate time. (E) is not correct. The applicant was required to provide notice of foreign filing within 45 days of filing in Japan, and two months have passed. As a result, a petition to revive under 37 CFR § 1.137(b) is required for examination to continue. Also see 37 CFR § 1.137(f).

Answer 64

ANSWER: (D) is the most correct answer. 37 CFR § 1.75; MPEP § 608.01(n). As explained in MPEP § 608.01(n), under the heading “Multiple Dependent Claims,” subheading “Acceptable Multiple Dependent Claim Wording” the multiple dependent claim wording of new claims 16-27 is proper. See, for example, “any one of the preceding claims,” and “in any of claims 1-3 or 7-9.” 37 CFR § 1.75(c) states “For fee calculation purposes under § 1.16, a multiple dependent claim will be considered to be that number of claims to which direct reference is made therein.” Therefore, claims 16-27 would each have a claim value of eleven and the total number of claims for fee calculation is one hundred forty-seven (12 x 11 = 132 + 15 = 147). Answers (A) and (B) are incorrect because they are not the correct total. Answer (C) is incorrect because the multiple dependent claims have not been calculated in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.75. Answer (E) is incorrect because the question asks for the total after the amendment adding claims 16-27 has been entered.

Answer 65

ANSWER: (A) is the most correct answer. 35 U.S.C. § 111; 37 CFR § 1.53; MPEP § 601.01. As provided in MPEP § 601.01(a), the filing fee for an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) can be submitted after the filing date. (B), (C), (D) and (E) are incorrect. 37 CFR § 53(b); MPEP § 601.01. 37 CFR § 1.53(b) provides that a filing date is granted on the date on which a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 containing a description pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.71 and at least one claim pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.75, and any drawing required by 37 CFR § 1.81(a) are filed in the Office. Thus, (B), (C), (D) and (E) are needed to obtain a filing date.

Answer 66

ANSWER: (D) is the most correct answer. MPEP §§ 1403 and 1412.03, under the heading “When A Broadened Claim Can Be Presented.” A broadening reissue claim must be filed within the two years from the grant of the original patent. (D) is the most correct and the examiner should examine the case as any other application and address appropriate issues concerning reissue examination. See Switzer v. Sockman, 333 F.2d 935, 142 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1964) (a similar rule in interferences). Since applicant filed the amendment by Express Mail, the amendment is treated as being filed with the USPTO on the date of deposit with the US Postal Service. Therefore, (A), (B) and (C) are incorrect answers. A reissue application can be granted a filing date without an oath or declaration, or without the filing fee being present. See 37 CFR § 1.53(f). Applicant will be given a period of time to provide the missing parts and to pay the surcharge under 37 CFR § 1.16(e). See MPEP § 1410.01. Choice (E) is not correct since the mere deletion of an element of a claim does not automatically raise a ground of rejection based on the recapture doctrine. See MPEP § 1412.02.

Answer 67

ANSWER: (C) is the correct answer. 37 CFR §§ 1.6(d)(3) and 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d); MPEP § 502 (reproducing Rule 1.6(d)(3)); MPEP § 512 (reproducing Rule 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d)); and MPEP §1817.01. As stated in MPEP § 1817.01, “[a]ll designations must be made in the international application on filing; none may be added later.” The application will not be accorded an international filing date since the practitioner has tried to cure the failure to designate at least one contracting State by filing a paper using facsimile which is not permitted according to 37 CFR §§ 1.6(d)(3) and 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d). (A) is wrong because applicant has failed to comply with Article 11(1)(iii)(b) on such date. See MPEP § 1810 (reproducing PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(b). (B) is wrong because according to 37 CFR 1.6(d)(3) and 37 CFR 1.8 (a)(2)(i)(d), applicant cannot file an international application by facsimile. See MPEP § 502 (reproducing 37 CFR § 1.6(d)(3)); MPEP § 512 (reproducing 37 CFR § 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d)). Since no designations were included on filing, the application papers cannot be accorded an international filing date. See PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(b). Applicant cannot correct this by filing the designation sheet by facsimile. See MPEP § 502 (reproducing Rule 1.6(d)(3)); MPEP § 512 (reproducing Rule 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d)). (D) is wrong because according to PCT Rule 80.5, when a response is due on a day where the receiving Office is not open for business, applicant has until the next business day. See Appendix T of the MPEP. (E) is incorrect because (C) is correct.

Answer 68

6. ANSWER: (D) is the most correct answer. 37 CFR § 1.56; MPEP § 2001.05. 37 CFR § 1.56(a) sets forth a duty to disclose information that is material to patentability. MPEP § 2001.05 states that “information is not material unless is comes within the definition of 37 CFR 1.56(b)(1) or (b)(2). If information is not material, there is no duty to disclose the information to the Office.” The information that moon dust was never actually used is not material as defined under 37 CFR § 1.56(b)(1) or (2) which state that information is material if “(b)(1) It establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or (2) It refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the applicant takes in: (i) Opposing an argument of unpatentability relied on b y the Office or, (ii) Asserting an argument of patentability.” That the use of the moon dust as part of an erasure formulation was only theorized and not actually used is acceptable as is an example for making it. MPEP § 608.01(p), II, under the heading “Simulated or Predicted Test Results Or Prophetic Examples,” states that “[s]imulated or predicted test results and prophetical examples (paper examples) are permitted in patent applications. … Paper examples describe the manner and process of making an embodiment of the invention which has not actually been conducted.” Care, however, must be taken not to state that an experiment was actually run or conducted when it was not and that “[n]o results should be presented as actual results unless they have actually been achieved.” MPEP § 2004, item 8. (A) is incorrect. 37 CFR § 1.56(a) requires that individuals associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application have a duty to disclose information to the Office. 37 CFR § 1.56(c) defines which individuals are associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application and that “(c) Individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application within the meaning of this section are: (1) Each inventor named in the application; (2) Each attorney or agent who prepares or prosecutes the application; and (3) Every other person who is substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who is associated with the inventor, with the assignee or with anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application.” Point is part of the Sales department and no facts were presented that substantively involved him in the preparation or prosecution of the application. Additionally, as noted in the explanation relating answer to (D), the information given to Point by Tip was not material information. (B) is incorrect. While Tip would be an individual identified under 37 CFR § 1.56(c), there is no material information to be disclosed as noted in the explanation to (D). (C) is incorrect. As noted in the explanation relating to (D), the information is not material. Additionally, as noted in the explanation to answer (A), Point is not an individual defined by 37 CFR 1.56(c) as owing a duty. (E) is incorrect. As there is no requirement that it be explicitly stated that an invention has or has not been actually conducted, as noted in the explanation of (D), the prosecution need not be continued for the purpose of supplying an information disclosure statement regarding the development of the moon rock erasure formulation.

Answer 69

ANSWER: (A) is the best answer. 35 U.S.C. § 102; MPEP § 2131.01, under the heading “Extra Reference or Evidence Can Be Used To Show an Inherent Characteristic of the Thing Taught by the Primary Reference,” states “that as long as there is evidence of record establishing inherency, failure of those skilled in the art to contemporaneously recognize an inherent property, function or ingredient of a prior art reference does not preclude a finding of anticipation. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1948 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Two prior art references disclosed blasting compositions containing water-in oil emulsions with identical ingredients to those claimed, in overlapping ranges with the claimed composition. The only element of the claims arguably not present in the prior art compositions was “sufficient aeration . . . entrapped to enhance sensitivity to a substantial degree.” The Federal Circuit found that the emulsions described in both references would inevitably and inherently have “sufficient aeration” to sensitize the compound in the claimed ranges based on the evidence of record (including test data and expert testimony). (B) is incorrect. The prior art reference, to anticipate the claimed invention, is not required to recognize an inherent property. See MPEP § 2131.01. (C) is incorrect. The prior art reference, to anticipate the claimed invention, is not required to recognize an inherent function of oxygen. See MPEP § 2131.01. (D) is incorrect. The prior art reference, to anticipate the claimed invention, is not required to recognize an inherent ingredient, oxygen. See MPEP § 2131.01. (E) is incorrect because (B), (C), and (D) are incorrect, as explained above.

Answer 70

ANSWER: (E) is the most correct, because statements (2) and (3) are true. The entire period for which diligence is required must be accounted for. MPEP § 2138.06, under the heading “The Entire Period During Which Diligence Is Required Must Be Accounted For By Either Affirmative Acts Or Acceptable Excuses,” states “[a]n applicant must account for the entire period during which diligence is required. Gould v. Schawlow, 363 F.2d 908, 919, 150 USPQ 634, 643 (CCPA 1966) (Merely stating that there were no weeks or months that the invention was not worked on is not enough.).” MPEP § 2138.06, under the heading “Work Relied Upon To Show Reasonable Diligence Must Be Directly Related To The Reduction To Practice,” states “[t]he work relied upon to show reasonable diligence must be directly related to the reduction to practice of the invention in issue. Naber v.Cricchi, 567 F.2d 382, 384, 196 USPQ 294, 296 (CCPA 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 826 (1978). ‘U]nder some circumstances an inventor should also be able to rely on work on closely related inventions as support for diligence toward the reduction to practice on an invention in issue.’” (A) is incorrect because statement (1) is not true – an inventor or his attorney need not drop all other work to establish reasonable diligence. Emery v. Ronden, 188 USPQ 264, 268 (Bd. Pat. Inter. 1974); MPEP § 2138.06. (B) is incorrect because it does not include true statement (3). (C) is incorrect because it does not include true statement (2). (D) is incorrect because it includes false statement (1).

Answer 71

ANSWER: (E) is the most correct answer. 37 CFR § 1.99; MPEP § 610. Rule 1.99 provides that a third party may submit in a published application a foreign-language publication and an English language translation of pertinent portions of the publication. The submission must “identify the application to which it is directed by application number,” . . “include the fee set forth in § 1.17(p);” include “a list of the patents or publications submitted for consideration by the Office, including the date of publication of each patent or publication;”. . . a “ copy of each listed patent or publication in written form or at least the pertinent portions;” and an “English language translation of all the necessary and pertinent parts of any non-English language patent or publication in written form relied upon.” (A) is incorrect. 37 CFR § 1.99 does not authorize a third-party submission of materials or things other than patents or publications. See 37 CFR § 1.99; MPEP § 610. Thus, submission of a videotape under §1.99 isnot authorized. (B) is incorrect. A third-party submission under 37 CFR 1.99 may not include explanations. See 37 CFR § 1.99(d); MPEP § 610. (C) is incorrect. A third-party submission under 37 CFR 1.99 may not include markings or highlights on the publications. See 37 CFR § 1.99(d); MPEP § 610. (D) is incorrect because a protest cannot be filed in a published application. See 37 CFR § 1.291(a)(1); MPEP 1901.06.

Answer 72

ANSWER: (E) is the most correct answer. 35 U.S.C. § 251; 37 CFR § 1.53(f); MPEP § 1403. Filing a broadened reissue application with at least one broadening claim prior to the expiration of the two-year time period set in the statute satisfies the diligence provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 251. The executed reissue oath/declaration and the filing fee may be filed at a later time. According to MPEP § 1403, a reissue application can be granted a filing date without an oath or declaration, or without the filing fee being present. See 37 CFR § 1.53(f). The reissue applicant will be given a period of time to provide the missing parts and to pay the surcharge under 37 CFR § 1.16(e). See MPEP § 1410.01. (A), (B) and (D) are clearly incorrect since the inventors and assignee would be barred from a broadening reissue if filed after the two year period set in the statute. (C) is incorrect since the reissue application was filed without at least one broadening claim prior to the expiration of the two-year time period set in 35 U.S.C. § 251.

Answer 73

ANSWER: (A) is the most correct answer. MPEP § 2113, under the heading “Product-By-Process Claims Are Not Limited To The Manipulations Of The Recited Steps, Only The Structure Implied By The Steps,” states “’even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).” The issue is whether the claimed mixture Y is the same as or obvious over the patented mixture Y. MPEP § 2113, under the heading “Once A Product Appearing To Be Substantially Identical Is Found And A 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejection Made, The Burden Shifts To The Applicant To Show An Unobvious Difference,” states “[o]nce the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears

Answer 74

ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. 37 §§ CFR 1.6(d)(3); 1.8(a)(2)(i)(F); 1.495(b); MPEP § 1893.01(a)(1), 2nd paragraph. The filing of the copy of the international application and the basic national fee in order to avoid abandonment under 37 CFR § 1.495(b), as appropriate, may not be transmitted by facsimile. See 37 CFR § 1.6(d)(3) and 37 CFR § 1.8(a)(2)(i)(F). (A) is not the most correct answer because facsimile transmission is not permitted in the situations set forth in 37 CFR § 1.6(d). (B) is not the most correct answer because even though an oath or declaration may be submitted by facsimile transmission as set forth in MPEP § 602, the national stage submission was improper for the reasons discussed in (C). (D) is not the most correct answer because (C) is the most complete answer. Facsimile transmissions may not be used to file a copy of the international application necessary to enter the national stage. (E) is not the most correct answer because facsimile transmission may be used to file certain correspondence in PCT applications. See MPEP § 1805.

Answer 75

ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. The principle in Statement 3, that consideration of inherent properties is part of proper consideration of the invention as a whole, is recited in MPEP § 2141.02, under the heading “Disclosed Inherent Properties Are Part Of ‘As A Whole’ Inquiry,” and in In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1977). (A) is incorrect, because the proper question is whether the invention as a whole, not just the differences, would have been obvious. See MPEP § 2141.02, under the heading “The Claimed Invention As A Whole Must Be Considered,” (citing Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 218 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (B) is incorrect because an examiner should consider such assertions by an inventor as part of the “subject matter as a whole.” See MPEP § 2141.02 (citing In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 585, 160 USPQ 237, 243 (CCPA 1969)). (D) and (E) are incorrect because they include incorrect Statements 1 and/or 2.

Answer 76

ANSWER: The correct answer is answer (C). 35 U.S.C. § 102(e); MPEP § 706.02(f). The application publication is a proper reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) because it was filed by another prior to the filing date of the invention. See MPEP § 706.02(f) et seq. Answer (A) is incorrect. The reference in answer (A) is not a proper reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because its international filing date was prior to November 29, 2000 thereby failing one of the three conditions for a WIPO publication of an international application to be applied under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). See MPEP § 706(f)(1), under the heading “I. Determine The Appropriate 35 U.S.C. 102(e) For Each Potential Reference By Following The Guidelines, Examples And Flow Charts Set Forth Below,” subpart (C), which states “[I]f the potential reference resulted from, or claimed the benefit of, an international application, the following must be determined: (1) If the international application meets the following three conditions: (a) an international filing date on or after November 29, 2000 . . . then the international filing date is a U.S. filing date for prior art purposes under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).” The reference in (B) is not a proper reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because the reference is not by another. See MPEP § 706.02(f). The reference in (D) is not a proper reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) refers to patents and patent applications, not journal articles. See MPEP § 706.02(f)(1). (E) is not correct because (C) is correct and (A), (B) and (D) are incorrect.

Answer 77

ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. See MPEP § 605.04(b), which states “Except for correction of a typographical or transliteration error in the spelling of an inventor’s name, a request to have the name changed to the signed version or any other corrections in the name of the inventor(s) will not be entertained…When a typographical or transliteration error in the spelling of an inventor’s name is discovered during pendency of an application, a petition is not required, nor is a new oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 needed. The U.S.[PTO] should simply be notified of the error and reference to the notification paper will be made on the previously filed oath or declaration by the Office.” (A), (B) and (D) could result in the spelling of Jon’s name being corrected in USPTO records, but would do so at a higher cost to applicant,and therefore neither one is the most correct answer. Furthermore, (A) is also not correct in that if a request to add John Jones as an inventor was to be filed, another request (and fee) to delete Jon Jones would be required. (B) is wrong because a petition under 37 CFR § 1.182 is not required if the error in the name is a typographical error, and the facts specify that the error in the spelling of “John” as “Jon” is a typographical error. (D) is not correct because not only would filing a continuation create an additional expensive, but filing a new application could also delay examination. (E) is not correct because pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.2, business with the Office is to be conducted in writing, and, even more importantly, because “it is improper for anyone, including counsel, to alter, rewrite, or partly fill in any part of the application, including the oath or declaration, after execution of the oath or declaration by the applicant.” MPEP § 605.04(a).

Answer 78

ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. 35 U.S.C. § 302; 37 CFR § 1.552; andMPEP § 2258. MPEP § 2258, under the heading “Prior Patents Or Printed Publications,” states“[r]ejections on prior art in reexamination proceedings may only be made on the basis of priorpatents or printed publications. Prior art rejections may be based upon the following portions of35 U.S.C. 102: . . .(e).” (A), (B), (D) and (E) are incorrect. MPEP § 2258, under the heading“Matters Other Than Patents or Printed Publications,” states “[r]ejections will not be based onmatters other than patents or printed publications, such as public use or sale, inventorship, 35U.S.C. 101, fraud, etc. In this regard, see In re Lanham, 1 USPQ2d 1877 (Comm’r Pat. 1986),and Stewart Systems v. Comm’r of Patents and Trademarks, 1 USPQ2d 1879 (E.D. Va. 1986). Arejection on prior public use or sale, insufficiency of disclosure, etc., cannot be made even if itrelies on a prior patent or printed publication. Prior patents or printed publications must beapplied under an appropriate portion of 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 when making a rejection.”Reexamination is limited to substantially new questions of patentability based on patents and publications.

Answer 79

ANSWER: (A) is the most correct answer. 37 CFR § 1.111; MPEP § 714.02. Section 1.111 states in pertinent part: “(a)(1) If the Office action after the first examination (§ 1.104) is adverse in any respect, the applicant or patent owner, … must reply and request reconsideration or further examination, with or without amendment. … (b) In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. …The applicant’s or patent owner’s reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.” MPEP § 714.02 states “In all cases where reply to a requirement is indicated as necessary to further consideration of the claims … a complete reply must either comply with the formal requirements or specifically traverse each one not complied with.” (B) and (C) are not the most correct answers. 37 CFR § 1.111; MPEP §§ 714.02 and 714.04. Neither reply specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and neither reply present arguments pointing out how the newly presented claims overcome the rejections. (D) is not the most correct answer. See 37 CFR § 1.114. A request for continued examination can only be made if prosecution of an application is closed. In this question the Office action is a non-final office action. (E) is not the most correct answer since (A) is correct and (B), (D) and (D) are incorrect.

Answer 80

ANSWER: The filing date of the nonprovisional application, (B), is the correct answer. See MPEP § 201.04(b), which states “[t]he [Uruguay Agreement Round Act] provides a mechanism to enable domestic applicants to quickly and inexpensively file provisional applications. Under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) applicants are entitled to claim the benefit of priority in a given application in the United States. The domestic priority period will not count in the measurement of the 20-year patent term. See 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(3). Thus, domestic applicants are placed on the same footing with foreign applicants with respect to the patent term.” A provisional application is filed under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) and according to 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(3), such a filing date is not taken into account in determining patent term. Therefore, (A) is incorrect. The fact pattern states that benefit was properly claimed in the international application to both the provisional application and the national application and that the national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 371 claimed benefit to the filing date of the nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. § 120. According to 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2), where an application contains a reference to an earlier filed application or applications under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, or 365(c), the patent term ends 20 years from the date on which the earliest such application was filed; in this fact pattern that date would be (B), the filing date of the nonprovisional application. The filing date of the international application, (C), is not correct in view of 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) since the international application claimed the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to the filing date of the nonprovisional application. The date of commencement of the national stage in the United States, (D), is not correct, since the date of commencement of the national stage in the U.S. is not relevant in the determination of the patent term of a patent issuing form the national stage of the international application. Furthermore, as noted in (B) above, since the international application claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. §120 to the nonprovisional application, the patent term of the patent issuing from the national stage is measured from the filing date of the nonprovisional application. Finally, the issue date, (E), is not correct, because in 1994, 35 U.S.C. § 154 was amended to provide that for applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of a patent begins on the date the patent issues and ends on the date that is twenty years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, of the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, or 365(c), twenty years from the filing date of the earliest of such application(s).

Answer 81

ANSWER: (E) is the most correct answer. Both (A) and (C) are correct. MPEP § 2163.01, under the heading “Support For The Claimed Subject Matter In The Disclosure,” states that “[I]f the examiner concludes that the claimed subject matter is not supported [described] in an application as filed, this would result in a rejection of the claim on the ground of a lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or denial of the benefit of filing date of a previously filed application.” (B) is incorrect. MPEP § 2163.01 states that unsupported claims “should not be rejected or objected to on the ground of new matter. As framed by the court in In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981), the concept of new matter is properly employed as a basis for objection to amendments to the abstract, specification or drawings attempting to add new disclosure to that originally presented.” (D) is incorrect because (B) is incorrect.

Answer 82

ANSWER: The correct answer is (C). See 35 U.S.C. § 172; MPEP § 1504.02. 35 U.S.C. § 172 provides that the time specified in 35 U.S.C. 102(d) shall be six months in the case of designs. Thus, to avoid a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(d), the U.S. design patent application must be made within six months of the foreign filing, i.e., by August 6, 2003. MPEP § 1504.02 states “[r]egistration of a design abroad is considered to be equivalent to patenting under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and 35 U.S.C. 102(d), whether or not the foreign grant is published. (See Ex parte Lancaster, 151 USPQ 713 (Bd. App. 1965); Ex parte Marinissen, 155 USPQ 528 (Bd. App. 1966); Appeal No. 239-48, Decided April 30, 1965, 151 USPQ 711, (Bd. App. 1965); Ex parte Appeal decided September 3, 1968, 866 O.G. 16 (Bd. App. 1966). The basis of this practice is that if the foreign applicant has received the protection offered in the foreign country, no matter what the protection is called (‘patent,’ ‘Design Registration,’ etc.), if the United States application is timely filed, a claim for priority will vest. If, on the other hand, the U.S. application is not timely filed, a statutory bar arises under 35 U.S.C. 102(d) as modified by 35 U.S.C. 172. In order for the filing to be timely for priority purposes and to avoid possible statutory bars, the U.S. design patent application must be made within 6 months of the foreign filing.” (A) and (B) are incorrect because they are after the six month period. (D) is not correct because it is not the latest date for filing as required by the question. (E) is not correct because answer (C) is correct.

Answer 83

ANSWER: (B). 37 CFR § 1.83(a); MPEP §§ 608.01(l) and 706.03(o). MPEP § 608.01(l) states “[w]here subject matter not shown in a drawing…is claimed in the specification as filed, and such original claim itself constitutes a clear disclosure of this subject matter, then the claim should be treated on its merits, and requirement made to amend the drawing and description to show this subject matter…It is the drawing…that [is] defective, not the claim. It is, of course, to be understood that this disclosure in the claim must be sufficiently specific and detailed to support the necessary amendment of the drawing…” MPEP § 608.02(d) and 706.03(o). MPEP § 706.03(o), state “[i]f subject matter capable of illustration is originally claimed and it is not shown in the drawing, the claim is not rejected but applicant is required to add it to the drawing. See MPEP § 608.01(l).” (A), (C), and (D) are incorrect. See the foregoing quotation from MPEP § 706.03(o). (A) and (C) also are incorrect because objections to drawings are petitionable, not appealable. MPEP §§ 608.02, under the heading “Receipt of Drawing After Filing Date,” and 1002. (D) is incorrect because the petition, filed more than six months after the final rejection, is not timely. A timely petition would be filed within two months from the mailing date of the action or notice from which relief is requested. See 35 U.S.C. § 133; 37 CFR §§ 1.181(f), 1.134 and 1.135(a); and MPEP § 710.01. (E) is incorrect because (B) is correct.

Answer 84

ANSWER: (A) is the most correct answer. 35 U.S.C. § 111; 37 CFR § 1.53; MPEP § 601.01 As provided in 37 CFR § 1.53(f) and MPEP § 601.01(a), the oath or declaration for an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) can be submitted after the filing date. (B), (C), (D) and (E) are incorrect. 37 CFR § 53(b); MPEP § 601.01. 37 CFR § 1.53(b) provides that a filing date is granted on the date on which a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 containing a description pursuant to § 1.71 and at least one claim pursuant to § 1.75, and any drawing required by § 1.81(a) are filed in the Office. Thus, (B), (C), (D) and (E) are needed to obtain a filing date.

Answer 85

ANSWER: The correct answer is (D). PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(e); 35 U.S.C. § 363; 37 CFR § 1.431(a); MPEP § 1810. Under PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(e) to be accorded an international filing date an application must have “a part which on the face of it appears to be a claim or claims.” (A) and (C) are incorrect. Under PCT Rule 19.4 if an application is not filed in the prescribed language or is filed by an applicant for which the Office to which the application is submitted is not competent, such application will be forwarded to the International Bureau which will act as receiving Office and accord a filing date as of the date of receipt in the USPTO. (B) is not correct. The Request may be signed by an attorney or agent who is registered to practice before the USPTO. In such a situation the application will be accorded an international filing date of September 18, 2002, and under PCT Article 14 an invitation to correct the defect will be mailed. See MPEP § 1805, paragraph 7; MPEP 1810, under the heading “The ‘International Filing Date,” second paragraph. (E) is also incorrect. Under PCT Rules 14.1(c), 15.4(a), 16.1(f), and 16bis.1 the fees may be paid at a date later than the original receipt date.

Answer 86

ANSWER: (B) is the most correct answer. 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1) provides that a US published application of a national stage of an international application filed on or after November 29, 2000 has a prior art effect as of its international filing date, if the international application designated the United States, and was published in English. Because in the above fact pattern, the international application designated the United States and was published in English, and was filed on or after November 29, 2000, the USPTO published application is entitled to its international filing date of January 5, 2001 for prior art purposes under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1). See Example 4 of MPEP § 706.02(f)(1). (A) is wrong because the Japanese filing date is relevant under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a) only for priority and not prior art purposes. (C) and (E) are wrong because they recite prior art dates that are later than January 5, 2001. (D) is wrong because the prior art date under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1) is earlier than the application publication date, June 6, 2002.

Answer 87

ANSWER: (D) is the most correct answer. 37 CFR § 1.111(b); MPEP §§ 818.03(a)-(c). MPEP § 818.03(a) states “[a]s shown by the first sentence of 37 CFR 1.143, the traverse to a requirement must be complete as required by 37 CFR 1.111(b) . . . Under this rule, the applicant is required to specifically point out the reasons on which he or she bases his or her conclusions that a requirement to restrict is in error.” An election must be made even if the requirement is traversed. MPEP § 818.03(b). Answer (A) is incorrect since the traversal does not distinctly point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, and no election is made. 37 CFR § 1.143. MPEP § 818.03(a) states “[a] mere broad allegation that the requirement is in error does not comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.111.” Answer (A) is also incorrect because no election is made. MPEP § 818.03(b) states, “[a]s noted in the second sentence of 37 CFR 1.143, a provisional election must be made even though the requirement is traversed. (B) is incorrect. MPEP § 818.03 since the traversal does not distinctly point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action. (C) is incorrect since no election is made. See MPEP § 818.03(b) (E) is incorrect because (D) is correct.

Answer 88

ANSWER: (C) is the most correct answer. 37 CFR § 1.193(a)(2); MPEP § 1208.01. If the claimed invention is rendered obvious by Smith in view of Jones and Brown, the statement of rejection must include all three references. Reliance on Brown to support the rejection is a different rejection from a rejection relying only on Smith in view of Jones. In accordance with MPEP § 1208.01, the Board will not consider the teachings of Brown because Brown was used to support the rejection, but was not listed in the statement of the rejection. As stated in MPEP § 1208.01, “Even if the prior art reference is cited to support the rejection in a minor capacity, it should be positively included in the statement of rejection. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970).” Therefore, (B) and (D) are clearly wrong. (A) is incorrect. The decision cannot affirm the rejection since there is no motivation for combining the teachings of Smith and Jones absent the teachings of Brown. Therefore, the rejection must be reversed, not affirmed.

Answer 89

ANSWER: (C) is the best answer. 35 U.S.C. § 102; MPEP §§ 2111 and 2131. MPEP § 2131, under the heading, “To Anticipate A Claim, The Reference Must Teach Every Element Of The Claim.” “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” See Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Here, every element of the claim is found in Patent A. See MPEP 2111, under the heading “Claims Must Be Given Their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation,” where it explained that “[d]uring patent examination, the pending claims must be ‘given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,” and cites In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) to explain that “reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope ofthe claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim.” (A) and (B) are incorrect. MPEP § 2111. The claim, as written, is not allowable over Patent A since Patent A disclosed every element recited in the claim. (D) is incorrect. There is no need to search again for a building material, this time looking for balsa wood. The claim has not been amended to be directed to balsa wood. Since it still broadly recites “wood,” Patent A that discloses pine remains germane and anticipates the claim. (E) is incorrect for one or more reasons. It is incorrect because it wrongly agrees with the practitioner’s argument that Patent A is poor reference. It also is incorrect because it seeks to reject the claim over 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for indefiniteness. The claim is clear on its face and there is nothing indefinite about what the claim says. This answer makes the mistake of confusing breadth with indefiniteness. The claim is broad but it is definite.