Inter partes reexam would be a good choice, but for the date (too early). This question asked about product brochure of a competitor and asked which was the best way to present the new material. The hairgel question (with Buzz, not einstein). I had the claiming priority to french phone design patent.Ĥ. I had a weird question about which of three things could a copy of a signature be used: amendment under 1.111, authorization to charge a credit card, or an oath or dec.ģ. The question is which of the following subject to a rejection under 112? The answer choices were, (i) while the spec discloses only a mirror, you can replace “mirror” in a claim with a “reflective material” since the reflective nature is inherent (ii) you can replace mirror in the spec with the dictionary definition and some others… I think that the answer is the first one since reflective material is probably not enabled by picking a single reflective material.Ģ. I’d say a fair 25%-33% of the questions were straight from previous tests that I had seen while taking the PRG ExamWare tests. 3) 35 USC 102 ( a),( b),( c),( d),( e),( f) and ( g)ĥ) 35 USC 112 ( 1st, 2nd and 6th paragraphs)ġ3) Secrecy, Access, National Security & Foreign Filing (MPEP 100)ġ5) Representative of Inventor or Owner (MPEP 400)ġ6) Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers (MPEP 500)ġ7) Restriction and Double Patenting (MPEP 800)ġ9) Matters Decided by PTO Officials – Petitions (MPEP 1000)Ģ4) Document Disclosure Program (MPEP 1700)Ģ8) Citation of Prior Art and Ex Parte Reexam (MPEP 2200)ģ2) Patent Terms and Extensions (MPEP 2700)
0 kommentar(er)
