Patent Bar Mpep Q & A Podcast

Question: What 3 components (in addition to the mandatory requirements) must an international design application designating the U.S. include? Answer: In addition to the mandatory requirements otherwise required for international design applications, an international design application designating the United States must also include: a claim; indications concerning the identity of the creator (i.e., the inventor); and the inventor’s oath or declaration. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2900 of the MPEP. This chapter covers International Design Applications. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the… The post MPEP Q & A 82: Components International Design Applications Designating the U.S. Must Include appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List one item the applicant must establish under 35 U.S.C. 156(a)(1)-(5). Answer: 35 U.S.C. 156(a)(1)-(5) require that the applicant establish that: (1) the patent has not expired before an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d) was filed (this may be an application for patent term extension under subsection (d)(1) or an application for interim extension under subsection (d)(5)); (2) the patent has never been extended under 35 U.S.C. 156(e)(1); (3) the application for extension is submitted by the owner of record of the patent or its agent to the Office within 60 days of regulatory agency approval of the commercial marketing… The post MPEP Q & A 81: Items Applicant’s Must Establish Under 35 USC 156 appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Is it possible for an assignment in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012 to be utilized as the oath or declaration? Answer: Yes, for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, an assignment may contain the statements required to be made in an oath or declaration (“assignment-statement”), and if the assignment is made of record in the assignment records of the Office, then the assignment may be utilized as the oath or declaration. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 300 of the MPEP. This chapter covers ownership and assignment. The answer is… The post MPEP Q & A 80: Assignments Potentially Utilized as the Oath or Declaration appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List two factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is ‘undue’. Answer: The factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is ‘undue’ include, but are not limited to: The breadth of the claims; The nature of the invention; The state of the prior art; The level of one of ordinary skill; The level of predictability… The post MPEP Q & A 79: Factors When Determining Sufficient Evidence Concerning Enablement Requirement appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Do the changes to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 in the AIA apply to applications filed before March 16, 2013? Answer: No, the changes to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 in the AIA do not apply to any application filed before March 16, 2013. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may be applicable in later Editions or revisions. Section Summary: This question and answer comes… The post MPEP Q & A 78: AIA and Applications Filed Before March 16, 2013 appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List one of the ways an inter partes reexamination proceeding may be concluded. Answer: Inter partes reexamination proceedings may be concluded in one of three ways: The prosecution of the reexamination proceeding may be brought to an end, and the proceeding itself concluded, by a denial of reexamination, or vacating the reexamination proceeding, or terminating the reexamination proceeding. (In these instances, no reexamination certificate is issued). The proceeding may be concluded under 37 CFR 1.997(b) with the issuance of a reexamination certificate. The proceeding may be concluded under 37 CFR 1.997(e) where the reexamination proceeding has been merged with… The post MPEP Q & A 77: Conclusion of an Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Who may file a petition for a covered business method patent review? Answer: A petitioner may not file a petition to institute a covered business method patent review of the patent unless the petitioner, the petitioner’s real party-in-interest, or a privy of the petitioner has been sued for infringement of the patent or has been charged with infringement under that patent. In addition, a petitioner may not file a petition to institute a covered business method patent review of the patent where the petitioner, the petitioner’s real party-in-interest, or a privy of the petitioner is estopped from challenging the… The post MPEP Q & A 76: Filing a Petition for a Covered Business Method Patent Review appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Who does the duty of disclosure in reexamination proceedings apply to? Answer: The duty of disclosure in reexamination proceedings applies to the patent owner; to each attorney or agent who represents the patent owner, and to every other individual who is substantively involved on behalf of the patent owner. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2200 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Citation of Prior Art and Ex Parte Reexamination of Patents. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may… The post MPEP Q & A 75: Duty of Disclosure in Reexamination Proceedings appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Where may information material to patentability come from? Answer: Sources of information may include: co-workers trade shows communications from or with competitors potential infringers third parties Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2000 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Duty of Disclosure. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in later Editions or revisions. Section Summary: This question and answer comes from section 2001 of the MPEP.  The following is a brief summary of… The post MPEP Q & A 74: Sources of Information Material to Patentability appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What must an international application contain? Answer: Any international application must contain the following elements: request, description, claim or claims, abstract and one or more drawings (where drawings are necessary for the understanding of the invention). Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 1800 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patent Cooperation Treaty. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in later Editions or revisions. Section Summary: This question and answer comes from section 1812… The post MPEP Q & A 73: Contents of an International Application appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: When should a Certificate of Correction be filed instead of a reissue? Answer: While reissue is a vehicle for correcting inventorship in a patent, correction of inventorship should be effected by filing a request for a Certificate of Correction if: (A) the only change being made in the patent is to correct the inventorship; and (B) all parties are in agreement and the inventorship issue is not contested. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 1400 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Correction of Patents. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015.… The post MPEP Q & A 72: Filing of a Certificate of Correction appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What does bibliographic data include? Answer: Bibliographic data includes: inventor information; correspondence information; application information; representative information; domestic benefit information; foreign priority information; and applicant information. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 600 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Parts, Form and Content of Application. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in later Editions or revisions. Section Summary: This question and answer comes from section 601.05(a) of the MPEP.  The following is a… The post MPEP Q & A 71: Bibliographic Data appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What are the three separate and distinct requirements required of the specification by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph? Answer: 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph require that the specification include the following three separate and distinct requirements: A written description of the invention; The manner and process of making and using the invention (the enablement requirement); and The best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The… The post MPEP Q & A 70: Three Separate and Distinct Requirements of the Specification appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: When may a protest be submitted? Answer: A protest must be submitted prior to the mailing of a Notice of Allowance and the application must be pending when the examiner receives the information. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 1900 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Protests. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in later Editions or revisions. Section Summary: This question and answer comes from section 1901 of the MPEP.  The following… The post MPEP Q & A 69: Submission of a Protest appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List one way possession may be shown. Answer: Possession may be shown in many ways. For example, possession may be shown by describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Possession may also be shown by a clear depiction of the invention in detailed drawings or in structural chemical formulas which permit a person skilled in the art to clearly recognize that applicant had possession of the claimed invention. An adequate written description of the invention may be shown by any description of sufficient, relevant, identifying characteristics so long as a person skilled in the art would… The post MPEP Q & A 68: Ways in Which Possession May be Shown appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What is the first step of the three-step process for the recapture rule? Answer: The first step of the three-step process for the recapture rule is: (1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims; Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 1400 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Correction of Patents. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in later Editions or… The post MPEP Q & A 67: First Step of the Recapture Rule appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What three things does the relevance of long-felt need and the failure of others to the issue of obviousness depend on? Answer: The relevance of long-felt need and the failure of others to the issue of obviousness depends on several factors: First, the need must have been a persistent one that was recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art. Second, the long-felt need must not have been satisfied by another before the invention by applicant. Third, the invention must in fact satisfy the long-felt need. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 700… The post MPEP Q & A 66: Relevance of Long-Felt Need and the Failure of Others appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List one of the underlying factual inquiries of obviousness. Answer: The factual inquiries enunciated by the Court are as follows: Determining the scope and content of the prior art; and Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in… The post MPEP Q & A 65: Underlying Factual Inquiries of Obviousness appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What is the strongest rationale for combining references? Answer: The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not… The post MPEP Q & A 64: Strongest Rationale for Combining References appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What may the grounds of refusal for a notification of refusal be based on? Answer: The grounds of refusal may be in the form of a rejection based on a condition for patentability under title 35, United States Code (which may include 35 U.S.C. 171, 102, 103, or 112), a requirement for restriction (where more than one independent and distinct design is presented in the application), and/or an objection (where not prohibited by the Hague Agreement). The grounds of refusal may also be based on applicant’s action, including cancellation of industrial designs in the international design application by amendment or… The post MPEP Q & A 63: Grounds of Refusal for a Notification of Refusal appeared first on Patent Education Series.