Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2342

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2343

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2344

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2345

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2346

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2347

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2348

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2349

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2350

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2342

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2343

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2344

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2345

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2346

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2347

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2348

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2349

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2350

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2342

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2343

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2344

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2345

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2346

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2347

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2348

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2349

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2350

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2342

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2343

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2344

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2345

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2346

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2347

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2348

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2349

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2350

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2342

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2343

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2344

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2345

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2346

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2347

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2348

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2349

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2350
Load Dump Area - Patentbarquestions

Load Dump Area


Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2342

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2343

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2344

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2345

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2346

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2347

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2348

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2349

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Berlin' for 'CET/1.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d106177366/htdocs/patentbarquestions/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 2350
From Patentbarquestions

Jump to: navigation, search

Hey all,

I passed this exam last month...and here's my study experience(s). Before learning about Wysebridge, I signed up for a competitors' Patent Bar study program that guaranteed I would pass. I studied this website intensely for over 3 months and still did not feel well prepared. In my opinion, the most effective way to learn the MPEP is to apply the questions directly. Knowing HOW to find the answers is so key and Wysebridge has hundreds of repeat questions to actively apply your learning and study skills.

Another thing I was really nervous about was the new AIA stuff - I took the test 1/21/4 (the LAST day the "old" exam was being offered...no pressure..!) so I knew that if I didn't get a decent grasp on the few topics that were already being implemented, I would have no chance! Yes, there is external info you can find regarding all these topics, but there is something so comforting about knowing that everything you need to know is located on one website, that you can access from virtually anywhere. I honestly don't understand why anyone would spend anywhere NEAR a thousand dollars on a review course when they could have access to WysebridgePRO for a fraction of that price.

Lastly, the level of customer service associated with a Pro membership is truly incredible. The team at Wysebridge is quick to respond, always with thorough answers, even if it is something not directly related to the MPEP. For example, I was very nervous about being able to sign up in time (before Jan. 24th) and emailed info@wysebridge.com about it. Bryan was SO HELPFUL and informative, which eased my nerves immensely. I know it seems like it should be all about the material, questions review, etc., but this exam is insane and being armed with every single bit of knowledge possible will help you to ultimately pass the exam (on the first try!!).




1/24/2014 I took the Patent Bar this past Monday (first time) and passed!!! Here's my study experience --- I hope it helps another prospective patent agent/attorney in their quest to conquer this exam:

I started studying from 2nd-hand PLI materials that I got from eBay (MPEP 8.8, patware 9.0) in mid-Dec, did all of the official practice tests on the Patware software, and studied the repeat questions posted on Wysbridge, mypatentbar etc.

The PLI course was a great kickoff to immerse me in patent prosecution and introduce me to all of the exam content. I spent my holiday break listening to all of the lectures and reading all of the course material. I then proceeded to listen to random lectures during my daily half-hour commutes to/from work for the next month. The words "Hello........John White here....." started haunting me everywhere I went and invading my dreams......

Coming off of that course, though, I was only getting in the 50%'s for scores on all of the prime questions, mini-exams etc. My first few practice tests that I took, I think I got 26/50, 27/50 and 30/50. This was without looking anything up in the MPEP, but was still rather discouraging.

Once I started using the MPEP, my scores increased by ~2-4 pts with every succeeding test. I went from 30/50 to 32/50 to 35/50 to 39/50 (all on separate exams....not repeats). The final breakthrough came with the discovery of the Wysbridge, mypatentbar.com, patentbarquestions.com, and patentacademyonline sites with all of the discussion on repeat questions and new questions since 2003. After practicing and studying that repository of questions and community feedback thoroughly, one of my exam sessions (morning of Oct 2003, I think) was a 45/50. I was getting confident but was still very nervous about the new AIA material.

Wysebridge and mypatentbar.com and patentbarquestions had some great information on general AIA topics that have recently been covered and even had a few specific questions. It was tougher to find information on the AIA content because of the nondisclosure agreement that has recently been put into place for the exam. My final discovery was the PatentAcademyOnline website, which had a great summary (free of charge) of all of the AIA topics that would be covered on the exam. I reviewed that material thoroughly in the few days before the exam and was very comfortable answering the AIA questions that appeared on my exam.

The exam itself was grueling despite my confidence and the morning session was particularly challenging. I took it one question at a time, answering all of them with my best guess and marking the questions I figured needed review after I got through all 50. I probably marked 25-30 of them!! I then went back and carefully reviewed as many as possible with my remaining time. I switched answers on some of my questions after finding specific passages in the MPEP --- my advice to test-takers is to use ALL of the time allotted for both sessions. Check and recheck your answers....there are many tricky questions on there. Also, take the 1-hour lunch break. It is essential to clear your mind and take a breather to regroup for the afternoon session.

One final note is that my exam crashed repeatedly during the morning session ---- whenever I would click on a hyperlink in the index of the MPEP, the software would shut down and the proctor would need to restart the PC. At first I thought it was just one particular hyperlink, but the error occurred with every hyperlink that I clicked. It was a devastating and distracting bug, but fortunately it didn't cut into my time at all and I probably only lost ~1 minute of time. Be prepared for things like this to happen and try not to let it rattle your concentration.


2/27/2013 This is the first site I found discussing the patent bar...finally paying it forward. So glad I knocked this out before all the new AIA changes were implemented on 4/2/13.

I took the exam a few days ago and passed. Here is what I remember about the questions:

-Smith DRAM
-ABC and XYZ corp
-Biological Materials
-Electric fan: different sized saucer
-Crossing the road
-Claim counting Ben 147
-Laurel, Abbot & Hardy
-Inventor Beck 150 degrees
-Spanish Phone
-Tommie & Jo
-Federal Court Decisions Binding
-A question about submitted tables on CD-ROM variant
-Lip gloss
-Chemical claim: relieve headaches
-Chemical compound for depression
-Indefinite claim using “high” (variant)
-Terminal disclaimer: who may sign? (variant)
-Piecemeal
-What does don’t require signatures? (variant)
-Small entity 50% reduction
-Late IDS when client knew of PA all along
-Claim to make electrical device heating a base
-Oath with wrong address (variant)
-Continuation app basis (variant)
-Patentable business method
-CoC clean copy
-Combination/Subcombination
-Toy horse (I had this question in each session, AM and PM!)
-Lost application at PTO (variant)
-Thermos 180 degree

Other questions I had generally:

-I had a number of the same questions that JW and llbe above had so check out those posts.
-two questions about examiner interviews.
-two questions about death of inventor.
-6-8 PCT questions.
-5-6 appeals questions.
-two questions about protests.
-a question about rapidity.
-7-8 AIA questions. I answered them all, but did not look any of them up. They are still beta at this point. (tick tock tick tock…!)
-The only supplemental material I looked at was the KSR doc…once.
-two questions on restriction
-a few questions about use of 131 affidavits
-a couple of questions about 112 written description and enablement

Not going to be as much chatter about the types of questions due to the NDA requirement that started on 4/2/13.


11/27/2012 Took the exam yesterday and did not Pass. I passed all my test in law school, passed the bar on the first try, but failed for the first time. Unlike the observations made by other I saw the rewording of old questions and old answers and only 3-5 repeat but 5-10 rewrites that where similar however definitely changed. Look at KSR and other resent cases and read the AIA (I did not). I was told that I could just look up these very quickly but found there just wasn't enough time for me to look up everything I wanted to. I did not miss by much but I will tell you the test very different from what the patent review courses will teach. Anyways, I'm going to take the test again ASAP and will post as I focus my studies for the new questions on the test. _____________ Took the exam on 10/13/2011 - Passed Repeat strategy is still valid. There are some updated questions but they are obvious - hint: If there is a date post 2007, probably time to look at the supplemental materials.

It was strong on 103 but they were not as nuanced as the poster below would make you believe. Much of them can be quickly found by smart searching in the correct section as the wording is pulled directly from the MPEP.


Took exam yesterday 9/07/2011, passed, and had a few observations:

1. My test was relatively light on PCT and Appeals, which was surprising. It was also very light on repeats. I'd say no more than 6-7 from the 2002/2003 exams, and perhaps another 5 that I picked up from the various sites. Every repeat I had was verbatim, down to the order of the answer selection.

2. NOTHING makes up for knowing generally where stuff is in the MPEP. Because of the lack of repeats, I was scrambling for the entire test period. I found the index to be very unresponsive to searching because searches look at the whole index, not a chapter identified by letter.

3. My test was absurdly heavy on 103 rejections. Before the test yesterday, if I had read that statement, my initial though would have been "money in the bank". However, these questions were very nuanced and especially difficult. Due to the high question amount (at least ten 103 questions), I'm thinking that some of them must have been experimental questions. However, I'd make sure that you spend a good chunk of time going over the subject matter.

4. The PDF software. I have no complaints with how easy it was to open and get to various parts of the MPEP, or with the scaling of the window. However, the search function was definitely flawed. There were a couple of occasions where I KNEW something was in a chapter, but the search wouldn't find it. On three occasions, I had to close the MPEP, reopen it, then re-search - which then found the reference I was looking for. Moral of the story - if you KNOW that something is there, don't blindly follow the search function.

5. New matter - KSR and recent court cases WERE tested. I hadn't looked at any of it, because I was too concerned with learning everything else! However, it was super obvious when they were testing it (they actually say... reject under KSR because of X as an answer choice), and a quick read of the supplemental documents allowed me to get those questions correct.

Super relieved. Thanks for everyone here doing what they do.


03/29/2011 Took exam today at Atlanta, GA. Passed.

All questions were repeated or recycled. I felt, I knew all of it. Some I had to look up just to confirm. Most, I was comfortable with it. Either it were from this website or from mypatentbar.com or intelproplaw forum. I had reviewed all three website.

A suggestion, some may be verbatim and in some concept was used in a different way.

It was comparatively easy pass.

Great feelings of passing. Relieved.

Thanks to every one for their contribution.


01/06/11 Took the test today and passed.

  • Several questions on PCT. The question facts stated that residents of a PCT contracting state, but which were not citizens of residents of the US, filed an international application designating the US as the receiving office. What will the USPTO do with the international application? I think the answer is that the USPTO will forward the application to the IB since the USPTO is not a competent receiving office when applicants are not residents or citizens of the US.
  • US resident files an international application, designating the US as the receiving office. What will the USPTO do with the international application? Most of the answer options stated that the applicant would be prompted to submit a translation. I don't remember the right answer.
  • Sole inventor dies. Sole inventor designated Mary as the executor of the estate. The son of the inventor discovers an invention that can be patented and approaches a practitioner. The son is named on the will. Who can sign the oath of the application?
  • The two sole inventors, with no assignee, die right after the notice of allowance is mailed. The answer options included the USPTO withdrawing the application from issue when notice of the death of the inventors was submitted; the application issuing unless the legal representatives intervened.
  • The inventor cannot be reached after diligent effort. Who cannot sign the oath/declaration? I think the right answer was the practitioner, i.e., if the inventor cannot be reached, and if the practitioner does not have a right on the invention, then the practitioner cannot sign the oath/declaration.
 Filing under 37 CFR 1.47(b) and 35 U.S.C. 118 is permitted only when no inventor is available 
 to make application. These provisions allow a “person” with a demonstrated proprietary interest 
 to make application “on behalf of and as agent for” an inventor who “cannot be found or reached after 
 diligent effort” or who refuses to sign the application oath or declaration. The word “person” has
 been construed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to include juristic entities, such as a corporation. 
 Where 37 CFR 1.47(a) is available, application cannot be made under 37 CFR 1.47(b)
  • International application was filed with two inventors, designating the US, US receiving office. Rule 92 is used to add a missing inventor. The new oath/declaration is not signed by the inventor being added. What must be filed for the application to enter the national stage and not be abandoned.
  • Applicant files an international application, application claims priority to another application. Applicant makes three corrections: (1) changing "ccar" to "car" on page x, (2) a drawing was missing but it was incorporated from the application from which priority is being claimed, (3) add a page or paragraph to the description associated with the drawing, supported by the application from which priority is being claimed. Which of these corrections can be made while in PCT Chapter 1?
  • Reissue application is filed to delete an inventor. The reissue application is also being filed to broaden the scope of the claims. Is the signature of the inventor being deleted necessary?
 Where a reissue to correct inventorship also changes the claims to enlarge the scope of the patent claims, 
 the signature of all the inventors is needed. However, if an inventor refuses to sign the reissue oath or declaration 
 because he or she believes the change in inventorship (to be effected) is not correct, the reissue application can still be 
 filed with a petition under 37 CFR 1.47 without that inventor’s signature **>provided the written consent of all owners/assign-ees
 as required by 37 CFR 1.172(a) is also submitted. In the situation where a patent to inventors X and Y has no assignee and a 
 reissue application is filed by inventor Y to delete the name of inventor X as an inventor and to broaden the patent. 
 Inventor X refuses to sign the reissue oath or declaration and refuses to provide the consent as required by 37 CFR 1.172(a). 
 In this   instance, 
 a 37 CFR 1.47 petition would not be appropriate to permit the filing of the reissue application since the consent requirement 
 of 37 CFR 1.172 (a) for each owner/assignee is not met. Resort to the courts would be required to delete the name of 
  inventor X as an inventor where X will not consent to the filing of a reissue application.
  • Applicant can submit an opinion related to a recent court decision that came up after appeal brief was filed, after examiner's answer was submitted, after reply brief.
  • Board of appeals affirms examiner's rejection and raises new ground of rejection. Applicant reopens prosecution to address the new ground of rejection, and files amendments. The amendments overcome the new ground of rejection and also happen to overcome the affirmed rejection. What is an appropriate action by the Examiner? Answers ranged from the examiner allowing the appeal to the examiner returning the application to the board to see if the new amendments overcame the affirmed rejection.
  • Restriction in an application
 Where inventions are independent (i.e., no disclosed relation therebetween), restriction to one thereof is ordinarily proper, MPEP § **>806.06<.
 Where inventions are related as disclosed but are distinct as claimed, restriction may be proper.
 Where inventions are related as disclosed but are not distinct as claimed, restriction is never proper.
  • Unduly multiplied claims. Correct answer is that Examiner calls Applicant and asks the Applicant to pick a subset of the claims for examination.
  • Restriction with application claiming combination and subcombination
 The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that a combination as claimed:
 (A) does not require the particulars of the subcombinationas claimed for patentability (to show novelty and unobviousness), and
 (B) the subcombination can be shown to have utility either by itself or in **>another materially< different *>combination<.

11/14/10 Took the test today and passed. Onward to questions! I had about 10 to 15 on the PCT. The concepts I can remember are: If the ISA provides an abstract, what can the applicant do if he doesn't like it? - The two options I remember were having 1 month to submit comments, or 2 months to submit comments, the right answer is 1 month At least two questions were on 102(e) filing date flow charts One involved PCT app claiming priority to a nonprovisional US app, which in turn claimed priority to a provisional US app. From what date do you calculate patent term?

2 questions about deaths of inventors (and a 3rd about whether a minor could sign)

2 questions about correcting inventorship when one of the inventors refuses to cooperate

one question asked about correcting an app to claim foreign priority: I quickly narrowed it down to two choices that were lists of things you had to submit (petition, statement the omission was unintentional, etc.). They were both the same except one included a fee, and the other included a translation. I believe the one with the fee was correct.

one question about if claims in a continuation count as twice rejected

one question on when to investigate fraud: the two choices I remember were 1) applicant has admitted that he knows of a court case that has "raised issues" involving fraud (but no decision as of yet) and 2) examiner has personal knowledge that there is a court decision that has determined the patent to be fraudulent. I picked 2)

two questions on supplemental declarations

one on ex parte reexam, the right answer was that a federal court decision was not binding on the USPTO

one question on trade secrets (involving material pertaining to patentability remaining in a sealed envelope)

one question from chapter 1900, one question from 2500 (I think both were beta questions, they had typos)

More 800 questions than I expected, maybe as many as 10

And here's a list of the repeats I saw and can remember: JJ Smithy; Inventor B's address is wrong, how do you NOT correct it; Inherent properties of a Mirror; 147 claims; Titanium baseball (prior art date variant, chose July 4th); Velcro trademark; Barry & Foreman; Tribell; Piecemeal; Improperly accorded assignee can sign small entity status

There were probably more but I cannot remember them.

Thanks everyone for your help and I hope I help someone in turn.



5/3/10 Passed today, New question:

Question on when it was not nessacary for examiner to give reasons on allowing patent. Tricky question because MPEP says that examiner is not required to give a reason. Answers are from MPEP 1302.14 Reasons for Allowance -->> EXAMPLES OF WHEN IT IS LIKELY THAT A STATEMENT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE RECORD

That repays my debt to the site, pass it on!

  • Passed today (3/17/10) thanks in part to this website.


questions/repeats I saw:

- a few of the PCT app in foreign language filed in USRO, what does USRO do?

- Tribell

- Titanium baseball (I answered date that item was indexed)

- Bloc (cure for cancer)

- when is supplemental oath/dec treated as amendment (reissue after NOA)

- 52 tables

- trade secret in reexam

- toy plane with wings covered in aluminum foil

- lip gloss

- incorrectly claiming small entity status question (where status changed day before fee submitted)

- don't think I saw this before, but app with 3 inventors, all on ADS,

but then they submit 3 individual oaths, none of which ID the other inventors. Oaths are defective (I think)

- PCT app filed only designating US. Does it get published after 18 months and in national stage?

I said no, only gets published in national stage, because of US Reservations to PCT (see MPEP 1803)

- a couple questions regarding what happens after new ground of rejection by board in appeal



  • From another board: Application was filed on 01/04/2002. The applicant received a notice from the Office

that application number 10/123456 as provided by the applicant did not match the PCT filing date of 04/01/2002

and that the applicant must make amendments to parts of the application.

- My understanding was that the MM/DD was swapped with DD/MM.

The answer is that the applicant had 16 months to correct priority.


1828 Priority Claim and Document [R-6]
Effective July 1, 1998, applicant may correct or add a priority claim by a notice submitted to the
Receiving Office or the International Bureau >(IB)< within 16 months from the priority date, or
where the priority date is changed, within 16 months from the priority date so changed, whichever
period expires first, provided that a notice correcting or adding a priority claim may in any event
be submitted until the expiration of 4 months from the international filing date. PCT Rule 26bis.1
and 37 CFR 1.451 and 1.465.



  • Understanding 102(e) dates [from freepatentbar.com/forum]


Here is some information you may find helpful in understanding 102(e) dates.


The key to understanding 102(e) date is to understand that the 102(e) date is the effective U.S. filing date.

Here is a condensed explanation of the 102(e) rule. It works every time. You won't have to remember complicated

charts, rules or flow charts. Here it is:


102(e) reference date of a U.S. patent, published U.S. patent application, or WIPO publication is the 
“earliest effective U.S. filing date” of that document. If the document doesn’t have an “earliest effective 
U.S. filing date”, then it does not have a 102(e) reference date.


An International Application (IA) can be considered part of the chain of the earliest effective U.S. filing date if:

1) Filed on or after November 29, 2000;

2) WIPO publication is in English; and

3) The US is one of the designated countries


For US patents only, the National Stage Entry date, for the purpose of this analysis, is considered

the earliest effective U.S. filing date if:

1) IA filed before November 29, 2000

2) The US is one of the designated countries


Otherwise, it should not be considered.


Note:

A foreign application filed under 35 USC §119(a)-(d) is never considered an earliest effective U.S. filing date;

see MPEP 706.02. Don’t confuse “earliest effect filing date”, which is used to claim priority benefit

and is a shield against prior art, with “earliest effective U.S. filing date”.




1. Which of the following does not constitute probative evidence of commercial success

to support a contention of non-obviousness?


a) In a utility case, gross sales figures accompanied by evidence as to market share.

b) In a utility case, gross sales figures accompanied by evidence as to the time period

during which the product was sold.

c) In a utility case, gross sales figures accompanied by evidence as to what sales would

normally be expected in the market.

d) In a utility case, gross sales figures accompanied by evidence of brand name recognition.

e) In a design case, evidence of commercial success clearly attributable to the design,

and not to improve performance of the device.


2. A practitioner submitted a new patent application to the PTO using the Express Mail service

of the U.S. Postal Service. The PTO never received the new application. Which of the following is

not necessary to comply with the requirements for receiving the date of deposit with the U.S.

Postal Service as the filing date?


a) A petition showing that the number of the Express Mail mailing label was placed on the application

before the application was sent.

b) A true copy of the new application showing certificate of mailing thereon signed by the practitioner’s

secretary stating when the correspondence was deposited with the U.S. Postal Service as first class mail

with sufficient postage in an envelope addressed to the Commissioner of Patent and Trademarks.

c) A true copy of the Express Mail mailing label showing the “date-in” or other official notation

entered by the U.S. Postal Service.

d) A true copy of the new application showing the number of the Express Mail mailing label thereon.

e) A true copy of any returned postcard receipt.


* ANSWERS:
Re: Q1, it's (d)..brand name recognition is NOT considered.
Re: Q2, it's (b)..you do not need a COM when mailing stuff using express mail.

- 03/02/2010 - Passed - I had Q2 appear on my test yesterday!!!


- 10/12/2009 - Passed


  • Claim using the term “high” should described in spec so one skilled in the art would understand it.


  • Spanish phone: Know only have 6 months from foreign design application filing to file US design app.


  • Easy French priority question, I think his name was “Pierre.” He filed in France, patent issued

then tried to file in US after more than 1 year – barred under 102(d). Tricky b/c they had option to do

102(b) and 102(d) but it wasn’t 102(b) b/c the french application had just published before the filing.


  • Hydrocyclone

Hydrocyclone separator apparatus repeat question, where the answer is Claim 5.

A method of separating material including fibers suspended in a liquid suspension
comprising the steps of separating the material into a light fraction containing the fibers
and a heavy fraction containing rejects, and converting the light fraction into a pulp and
paper stock suspension.




- 01/07/2010

I passed. Many thanks to everyone at this site. It was a big help.

Review it IN DETAIL putting a lot of time into reconstructing both what the Q is SAID to be

& (based on your knowledge & the MPEP & old exams) what the Q *is.*

Some things get lost in translation, but if your're smart & supplement this site with good,

hard studying of the MPEP & the 2002-2003 exams, you will get a lot of freebies.


Observations:

1. Overall: Many people report a marked difference between the AM & PM sessions. I didn't see that.

There seemed to be roughly 10-12 repeats in both sessions --> enough to give you a boost but not enuf

to make up for not knowing the material or being able to search the MPEP quickly & effectively.


2. Repeats:

i) Laurel Abbott & Hardy (4.00.14a)

ii) Japan 45 days (10.03.44a/4.03.2a)

iii) Issue fee Transmittal form (1003 PM Q#38)

iv) Copper substrate (1003 AM Q#4)

v) 3rd Party submissions (1003 PM Q#10)

vi) Beck - Mixture Y made by Process Q1 (10.03.11p/4.03.22a)

vii) Verification statement (1003 PM Q#32)

viii) Cancer/Bloc/incredible utility (10.03.7a/4.03.32p)

ix) ABCD/ABCDE/BCDE (10.03.2p)

x) DRAM (10.03.9a)

xi) 5 steps for x-ing the road (10.03.23a)

xii) 147 claim counting (no variation - it's 147) (10.03.50a/4.03.28p)

xiii) IDS/RCE (1003 AM Q#34)

xiv) New ground of rejection (at least 4-5 Ques's on this topic) (1003 AM Q#37)

xv) Twice rejected (0403 AM Q#8)

xvi) Inert gas (0403 AM Q#30)

xvii) 34.9% polyethylene (0403 AM Q#44)

xviii) Cancelled matter (0403 PM Q#48)

xix) Protest (1002 PM Q#46)


3. "New" questions reported on the site(s):

i) Trade secret (varied a little from what I read on the site - so be careful)

ii) Assignee not of record CAN sign an assertion of small entity status but CANNOT file a terminal dislcaimer

iii) Red or black ink (Red ink *CAN* be used to correct file wrappers, indicate amend's accepted/denied etc.)

iv) Piecemeal - reject but call atty 1st

v) Hairgel (Patent app filed <11/29/99 so do NOT answer Inter partes reexam - it's ex partes!)

vi) Lipgloss (gag gift version)

vii) Spanish phone - the comments on the site are all over the map as to whether inventors should "give up"

or whether the diff's in designs take it out of the realm of anticipation. I went with the only answer choice

that held the 2nd design mod rejected under 102d but do not know if it was correct or not.

viii) Information requested from USPTO (i.e. client wants you to find out about competitor's patent)

ix) Maintenance fee missing number

x) Japanese patent 16 month priority

(I got a TON of priority Q's. At least 3-4 questions on the 4/16 month rule, & another 3-4 on 119/120/365c).

xii) Best mode

xiii) Advisory action

xiv) The "much debated divisional-reissue question"

xv) Revival of abandoned reexamination

xvi) Contesting inventorship via interference

xvii) What amend's can be submitted i) after filing NOA & ii) after brief


4. Prep strategies: I took a synergistic approach: get a few points from the site(s), a few points

from good MPEP searching & some more from repeats & together the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

I definitely hit the books hard starting about roughly 12/15 but started to take the foot off the gas a day

or two before the Exam. I've taken enuf of these things before to know that freshness & being mentally sharp

on exam day will do much more for you than the 1 or 2 or things you *might *pick up in the hours before the exam.

Good luck to everyone!


- 12/28/09

Passed . . . questions on this site and mypatentbar.com were very helpful.

Took the 2002, 2003 old exams; didn't take the earlier ones but maybe should have taken a few for practice.

Tons of repeats (more than expected), and at least five PCT 102(e) questions that were all variations of the examples in MPEP 706.


Ex) Canada app filed date 1, IA filed date 2 (Oct 20, 2000) designating US, IA publishes date 3,

continuation filed before national state in US under 111(a), what is 102(e) date of US continuation publication.

Several PCT quesions about other issues (amendment, filing date, etc.)\

That adds up to at least 10 PCT questions total, which is way more than I expected.


- Repeats I remember:


  • moondust variant, except the call of the question now uses the word "prophetic" to make it clear

there is not duty to disclose (10.03.6p)

  • tribell aromatherapy/broadening reissue question where the answer is A (10.03.16a)
  • Notice of foreign filing and rescind / 45 day Japan question (10.03.44a/4.03.2a)
  • crossing street (10.03.23a)
  • piecemeal examination -- answer is all four situations justify limiting action on a claim (direct quote from MPEP)
  • Chemical Y / Synthetic Z incredible utility cancer question (10.03.7a/4.03.32p)
  • The question about a Japanese citizen who resides in US and files a Japanese-language PCT in the USPTO

(US/RO, the question said); what does the US do?

Answer was forward to IB upon payment of a transmittal fee.

Also a very similar question where the answer was the app gets the receipt date in the US/RO as the international filing date.


  • Practitioner not of record needs to file something from Germany; how does he do it? I'm pretty sure

the answer was just fax it, because it says he signs it and uses his registration number to act

in representative capacity; everything else would put the filing beyond the abandonment date.


  • what fee is not reduced for small entity (filing an assignment of title)
  • App A assigned; B divisional filed later; how do you get assignee X shown on the face of patent B;

Answer is fill in the blank on the issue transmittal sheet or something similar rather than file a new assignment or check PAIR or something.


- A few new questions I remember:


  • Two variants of this: Applicant appeals rejection of independent claim 1, dependent claims 2-8 to Board.

2-8 were only objected to based on dependency on rejected claim 1; independent claim 9 was allowed.

What happens if Board affirms rejection of claim 1, leaves 2-8 and 9 alone?


Answer was to cancel 1-8 and issue with 9,

or allow applicant to do it in 1 month (there was only one possibly correct answer).


Second variant was the same thing without claim 9; what happens after Board affirms rejection of independent claim?

Don't remember wording, but answer was that the dependant claims also do not survive.

Pretty sure this second question was word-for-word from a prior released exam.


  • the "who has to sign to fix address for B if oath was signed by A, B, and C" question 12/22 references below;

my answer choices were different and I was able to look up who has to do it (sorry, don't remember).

MPEP 601.03
  • the same "when can amendments be entered" question 12/22 references; the answers were all directed at showing that

the jurisdiction had passed from the examiner to the Board for decision and so amendments would not ordinarily be considered

(e.g. amendment 4 months after examiner's supplemental answer, 3 months after no reply, etc.).

I picked E, none of the above.

MPEP 1206
  • the inequitable conduct question 12/22 mentions (when can examiner reject based on breach of duty to disclose under 1.56?).

The two plausible answers were along the lines of "in a reissue, the examiner has knowledge not of record of

a court determination of inequitable conduct" and "in a reexam, the patentee admits breach of the duty to disclose."

I'm pretty sure the answer was the reissue one based on a very similar quote from MPEP in the reissue section,

because the admission during reexam seems beyond the scope of what can be done in a reexam.

But I was unable to confirm that.

MPEP 2012 & 2016
  • A question where you get a notice from the USPTO that figure 5 is missing from application filed on date X;

which of the following will get figure 5 back into the application with a filing date of X?

Three of the answers were improbable, and the two remaining were the 1.53(e) petition

(I think) with all requirements met including a stamped receipt card from the PTO listing figures 1-5 as filed,

or a petition under 1.10 alleging that the express mailing procedures were not followed.

The trick, I think, was that 1.10 can't be used to establish that individual items (e.g. figure 5) were mailed,

as opposed to a whole package. So the 1.53(e) petition was the way to go.


  • An express mail question that asked all of the following are required to prove nonreceipt of express mail

except the following: the answer was (B) or (C), which was roughly

"the registered practitioner's secretary signs an affidavit that it was deposited in the mail bearing sufficient first class postage."

All of the other answers are straight out of the reg as requirements for the petition.


  • Several questions about what can't be filed by fax or certificate of mailing;

in one, everything gets a filing date except the thing mailed from GERMANY with a certificate of mailing.

Another question tried to get you to say that a reexam request could be filed by fax.


  • A question where appeal is filed in parent application A following final rejection but no brief is filed,

and a continuation B is filed one day before the seven months to file brief in parent A expires.

Nothing filed in A (extension of time etc) but cover letter for B says

"Commissioner is authorized to deduct any fees etc including necessary to make parent application A copending."

Question was what is status of B?

(A) Copending because filed before notice of abandonment mailed in application A

(B) Abandoned because it should have been addressed to "Director" and not "Commissioner" (seriously)

(C) Abandoned because separate applications require separate papers, and therefore request for extension in B cover letter didn't extend A to make copending

(D) Copending if an automatic extension is filed in A before seven months expires

(E) Abandoned because of some other odd watermelon-related reason.

I think I went with (D) but I couldn't find this one in the MPEP.

 MPEP 710.02(e) = Answer is (C) and not (D) - request made for application B can not apply for application A 
 Applicants are cautioned that an extension of time will not be effected in the prior application by filing a petition for an 
 extension of time, extension fee, or fee authorization, in the continuing application. This is because the petition for an 
 extension of time (or constructive petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a)(3)) must be directed toward and filed in the application 
 to which it pertains in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4 and 1.5.
  • A question that basically asked,

"when you make an Article 19 amendment to a PCT, what can you amend and where do you send it?"

Two answers said "the claims only," two said "description only," one said "description and claims."

Of the "claims only" answer one said "The US/RO and the IB," the other was just the "IB."

The answer was easy to look up; if I remember correctly it was claims only, send directly to the IB.

But my memory is hazy so I'd look that one up again.


  • PCT enters national stage in US;

question makes clear that copy of the international app in French was send to the US before 30 months.

On anniversary of 30th months from priority, applicants file national stage app and basic filing fee,

but no declaration or translation into English.

Question was which is most correct (I don't remember order of answers so the letters here are made up):

(A) Abandoned because filing on anniversary date of 30 months is too late

(B) Pending because translation can be submitted after 30 months

(C) Pending because basic filing fee was paid within 30 months

(D) Abandoned because translation not filed within 30 months

(E) Abandoned for some improbable reason.

I think both B and C are correct, but I went wiht B because it seemed more correct.


  • A different claim counting question that asked how many DEPENDANT claims are there for fee purposes; pretty straight forward
  • my last question was very confusing, or maybe I was just tired. Along the lines of:

A files a nonprovisional on invention X in the US on May 1, 2000;

Examiner rejects X over Thomas patent dated 1952 in view of Scott patent dated April 30, 1999

(one year and one day before A's filing date on X).

Which if true would successfully overcome rejection?

(A) Juggle Watermelons

(B) Argue, based on an affidavit filed by X, that X has had commercial success selling an embodiment of X

and therefore that X is commercially successful

(C) Juggle Watermelons

(D) File a 1.131 affidavit antedating Scott, and argue that it was therefore no longer available as prior art

(E) Watermelons.

I went with D, since there didn't seem to be any statutory bars even though it was >1 year and would overcome the rejection,

but B seemed plausible since it would rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.

I found confusing that the question didn't specify if it was a 102 or 103 rejection,

so I assumed the latter given the wording and not some weird 102 primary reference / second reference used to explain

an inherent characteristic question.


- 12/22/09

I passed. Beforehand I was worried that I would have to take another 6 hour test if I failed this.

freepatentbar.com, mypatentbar.com, and patentbarquestions.com helped a lot. With everyone contributing information,

I think that is what helped me pass, so I figured I could say what I remember...

Two items for you: New Questions I can remember and Repeat questions I can remember


- New Questions

1. A question related to 3 inventors A, B, and C on a pending application.

Applicant discovers the ADDRESS is incorrect for Inventor B.

How do you make an address change on the application?

(one inventor may be unavailable, and these answers are just surmises)


A) Assignee of entire interest sends in an Application Data Sheet correcting

B) 3 inventors declare oath with correct addresses

C) Send in notification of Inventor B's address

D) Assignee declares oath with all the correct Inventive Entity info

E) Assignee signs a petition under some number naming all inventors A, B, C declaring all inventors

and identifies Inventive Entity


  • I answered A) Assignee of entire interest sends in an Application Data Sheet correcting.


[603 Supplemental Oath or Declaration]

37 CFR 1.67 Supplemental oath or declaration.

(a) The Office may require, or inventors and applicants may submit, a supplemental oath or declaration meeting the requirements of

§ 1.63 or § 1.162 to correct any deficiencies or inaccuracies present in the earlier filed oath or declaration.

(1) Deficiencies or inaccuracies relating to all the inventors or applicants (§§ 1.42, 1.43, or § 1.47) may be corrected with a supplemental oath

or declaration signed by all the inventors or applicants.

(2) Deficiencies or inaccuracies relating to fewer than all of the inventor(s) or applicant(s) (§§ 1.42, 1.43 or § 1.47) may be corrected with

a supplemental oath or declaration identifying the entire inventive entity but signed only by the inventor(s) or applicant(s) to whom the error or deficiency relates.

(3) Deficiencies or inaccuracies due to the failure to meet the requirements of § 1.63(c) (e.g., to correct the omission of a mailing address

of an inventor) in an oath or declaration may be corrected with an application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76.

(4) Submission of a supplemental oath or declaration or an application data sheet (§ 1.76), as opposed to who must sign the supplemental oath

or declaration or an application data sheet, is governed by § 1.33(a)(2) and paragraph (b) of this section.


2. What amendments after final can be entered during appeal?

A) Amendment after 3 months

B) Amendment after 4 months.

C) ?

D) Some item that is oddly worded about it being sent to the board and the examiner confirms the reply brief,

that is very similar to wording in MPEP ( I thought I saw it in 1200, but I can't find)

E) None of the answers.


I answered E


3. Some poorly-worded question asking which is true regarding reissue

A) (one of the answers related to Dependent claim [ENLARGED])

A reissued dependent claim omits a Original Claim Patent Limitation and an Independent Claim is ~


I answered E) none are true


4. Many many variants of International Filing Date and non-US-nationals applying. Like 6 questions!

Costa Rican's, Swedish, Mexican.

One was an application claim to a foreign priority that claimed a provisional US application. What was the filing date?

I answered the filing date was the Provisional given the time constraints and because it was filed in the US.

Another question asked for a 102(e) date of an application that predated November 27th 2000 (1999?).

I answered None.


REMEMBER:

A PCT application filed that's not written in English or does not having any US residents as inventors

that is designating US as Receiving Office, is accorded the filing date the US receives it, and forwards it

to the International Bureau Receiving Office, since the US office is not a competent office.


5. Inequitable Conduct: Typically examiner does not look into inequitable conduct based on admission by applicant,

but in which case may it be taken into account


A) Applicant says "not intentional" even though Examiner knows there is inequitable conduct

B) Applicant says "unintentional" about knowing some art or court case

C) ?

D) Third Party files a protest of fraud saying he invented the invention first

E) a variant of D


6. (I can't quite remember this one right, but D was the answer to how the question was written)

Which one does not work to invoke 112 6th paragraph?

(A) the claim limitations uses the phrase “means for” or “step for;”

(B) the “means for” or “step for” must be modified by functional language; and

(C) the phrase “means for” or “step for” must not be modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for achieving the specified function.

(D) the claim limitation recites "step for"

(E) None of them invoke 112 6th paragraph


My answer was D) due to that funny E ending, and since


EDIT: 2181 Identifying a 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph Limitation [R-6]

I. LANGUAGE FALLING WITHIN 35 U.S.C. 112, SIXTH PARAGRAPH

A claim limitation will be presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, if it meets the following 3-prong analysis:

(A) the claim limitations must use the phrase "means for" or "step for;"

(B) the "means for" or "step for" must be modified by functional language; and

(C) the phrase "means for" or "step for" must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function.


There are three elements (notice they are conjunctive using “and”) to invoke 112(6).

All the elements A, B, and C must be in the claim to invoke 112(6).

The above question, if it’s reproduced correctly, only lists one element per answer choice.



7. All are required for an oral hearing except:

a) Separate paper

b) Filing Fee

c) Written Request

d) Time and Date of Oral Hearing

e) All are required


The correct answer is D, MPEP 1209, the board picks a date and time.


8. What constitutes a 102(b) public sale bar?

A)

B)

C) A commercial sell, but is rejected

D)

E) some crazy answer which is a specific court case in the MPEP where an order was placed and the answer was "bla la"


Correct answer was the sale that was rejected, which has some ambiguity but is says specifically in MPEP

that may constitute a bar.


REPEAT QUESTIONS


3 Questions regarding new grounds of rejection on Appeal

Variant of Acme company with the given fact that the assignment has already been recorded, so what now.

Various Items I remember from previous questions that ended up being questions.

• Potter question was asked.

• Rescind and 45 days,

assignee not of record may assign small entity,

How long from time can you get a refund for small entity.

You must reclaim foreign priority in a reissue, even if mentioned in the original

• Cancer question

Regarding Multiplicity - Call up attorney

• What is required for Piecemeal - 4 items, one including Multiplicity

Revival of Ex Parte Examination

• Incorrect spelling of inventor Jon convert to John, how do you fix?



- 12/15/09 -

Took the test at the Fairfax, VA test center (fast computers, flat screens). I studied the practice exams enough that they were nearly memorized. This helps a ton with time management when you can spend 30 seconds on a question. I had 4-5 questions on the judges making new grounds of rejections in the appeals, and I felt I had 10-15 questions dealing with issues in chapter 600. The PCT questions were mostly repeats from what people have posted here and at mypatentbar.com. I also had the much debated two inventor DIV-reissue question and chose the answer to file a reissue with one inventor's claims and a DIV-reissue with another inventors claims. As with the 12/10/09 test taker, I had the maintenance fee with no identifying info, but it dealt with using 37 cfr 1.377 petitions, which are not available if there is no mandatory identifier (MPEP 2580).


- 12/10/09 -

Took test today and I'm pretty disappointed i didn't pass. Studied an outline from Bullseye Patent Bar Prep. I also took the 3 practice exams from the USPTO website and did well on them. However, failed the actual exam with a 67%. I didn't have nearly as many repeats as others have reported; maybe like 8-10 repeats total. I had a bunch of PCT questions, double-patenting, and appeal questions. Also had a few maintenance fee questions, and a couple questions on terminal disclaimers. I was honestly shocked when I learned I didn't pass. I didn't feel the exam was too difficult and I had enough time in both sessions to look up the answers to the questions I wasn't sure of (except PCT's b/c the fact patterns really don't allow for you to look up the answers so you pretty much know PCT's or you don't). There were two questions I spent at least 10 mins looking up but couldn't for the life of me find that answer. The first had to do with who could sign a terminal disclaimer where app #1 is an invention having ABCD and app #2 is an invention having ABCDE. Who must sign the terminal disclaimer? The answers were combinations of the inventors, the assignees and a licensee. Second, applicant wants to pay maintenance fee on patent. Sends payment to USPTO, but includes wrong Patent No. and no App Ser. no. What does USPTO do? NONE of the answers included returning payment back to the applicant and setting time period to properly indicate patent info (which is what I thought the answer would have been). Looked everywhere in section 2500, but to no avail. Worse thing is having to pay the $400 again to re-take it. No sympathy from the PTO LOL.

 Terminal Disclaimer = CFR 1.321 
 Maintenance Fee = CFR 1.366 - 378
 
 MPEP 2530 II. PATENT NUMBER AND APPLICATION NUMBER SUPPLIED BUT THEY DO NOT CORRESPOND
 When a patent number and an application number are both supplied, but they do not correspond to the same patent, 
 the Office will make a reasonable attempt to confirm the correct patent by telephoning the submitter (e.g., patentee or agent), 
 provided the payment is sufficient to pay the maintenance fee due on either the patent identified by the patent number or the 
 patent identified by the application number.
 

- 11/23/2009 -

Took the test yesterday and passed (2nd try). Make sure you understand the mechanics of the following areas- Appeals, PCT priority dates/time to correct errors, 102, 112, 103, reissue, correction of inventorship.

As others have indicated, going through old tests is the best way to study for this sucker - there a number of repeats. Good luck - this test blows.


- 11/13/2009 -

Took the exam yesterday and passed on my first try. I took three of the practice exams once each (both 2003 and Oct. 2002) in the couple days leading up to the exam. I hovered around 70% on the 2003s and then got somewhere in the 90s on the 2002 exam. Unlike the person below, I did not overstudy. If I had to do it all over again (which, thank god, I don't), I would take the practice exams earlier in my studying. Going through all the answers, even the ones I got right, helped immensely. Have to say I was nervous and felt slightly unprepared, but I survived.

There were a decent amount of repeats, but I was surprised by how many PCT questions I got. I literally felt like every other question was asking me to figure out prior art dates and filing dates for international apps. I probably had three or four "Japanese App" questions - not sure how many were betas, though. I also probably had 5-6 questions dealing with appeals, the expected slew of 2100 questions (several motivation questions), a good amount of questions dealing with reissue/correction of inventorship, and maybe 3 dead inventor questions.

I (sort of) used the PatBar review course, although I think I would have been just as fine using one of the online outlines and doing practice tests. To be honest, I thought the PatBar books were poorly organized, hard to read, and had a bunch of typos. I didn't even bother looking at the flashbards they sent me either. The audio lectures were probably helpful to get a base understanding of the materials, but the man's voice is monotonous and hard to listen to for long periods of time. I tried listening to them while I was driving to and from a wedding 6 hours away and almost drove off the road from boredom.

My testing center experience was good - I took it in Worthington, Ohio (except for the man in the cubby next to me who I had to ask to sit still). Probably the worst part of the experience was having to click through the survey at the end that they make you take before they give you your results. Luckily, I had read on one of these forums to expect that, but my heart was still pounding the entire time.

Lastly, if you're a law student reading this and wondering when you should take the exam, I would highly recommend taking it DURING law school. I'm a 2nd yr associate, and trying to squeeze in enough studying and still bill hours wasn't fun.

Good luck to everyone taking the exam! (and make sure you do the practice tests!!!)


- 11-10-2009 -

took the exam today and passed (1st). really not that bad overall I thought. there were a bunch of repeat questions from the previous exams posted on the PTO (maybe as much as 25) so honestly I think that I over studied for for the exam. I made comments on the 'Questions reportedly asked in the Patent Bar Exam' as to the questions that were on the exam.


- 15 October 2009

Took the exam and passed (first attempt.) I took the PLI course. It was very helpful to establish a base of understanding and I recommend it but it is nowhere near enough. As has been stated on this site and others, you need to know the old exams (especially the 2003 versions) forwards, backwards, and upside down. I went thru all of the old exams (2002 and 2003) once on paper looking up every answer right and wrong and noting all the MPEP references on the question pages (which builds a handy study reference along the way.) I then went thru each of them in PLI’s Patware software three more times. The old exams serve several purposes: you learn the way the PTO frames questions (they love the negative question call), you learn the MPEP and how it’s put together (relationship of law, rule, procedure), you grow a great base of understanding, you get used to doing 50 questions in three hours, and last but not least you will see a bunch of word-for-word repeats that are easy points on an already tough exam.


- I saw the following repeats:

  • Oct 03 AM – 3,7,11,16,23,24,28,32,34,50
  • Oct 03 PM – 4,6,8,10,13,14,15,17, a variation of 18,24,25,29
  • Apr 03 AM – 2,22,25
  • Apr 03 PM – 7,9,11,32

In addition I saw: Titanium baseball, Velcro, death of inventor (attorney had an interest), Costa Rica, Mirror variation, Blockhead, Spanish phone, and Tommie and Jo.

There were several 102(e) date questions and lots of appeals and reexam. A few PCT. Some reissue and restriction. I made trips to 100, 300, 400, and 500 to clarify answers.

It’s well worth your time to read at least 600, 700, 1200, 1800, 2100 (at least once thru each and then multiple skims.)

Thanks to the folks who put this site (and others) together.


- October 8, 2009 -

I passed the exam (2nd attempt). Previously, I studied and practiced the old exams (2000-2003) and watched PLI lectures. After my first attempt, I went and read chapters 600, 700, 800, 1800, 2100, and the appeals chapter which the number eludes me at the moment. There were about 2 102(e) questions, PCT questions relating to facisimiles, 2 PCT questions relating to PCT rule 26bis (adding priority claims), quite a few appeals questions. I counted about 24-26 repeat questions (including the ones I saw on my earlier attempt). My suggestion is to watch the PLI lectures and read some of the chapters. Also, there are more restriction questions. I observed in the past restriction questions focused on proper ways to respond to a restrict requirement (traverse and point out errors, election without traverse). I had a question about combination/subcombination restriction and another question on when is a restriction requirement considered untimely (issuing restriction requirement after final).

Along with all the general stuff in the PLI, I would suggest supplementing it with a read through of appeals chapter and a little on restrictions (the restriction part of chapter 800 isn't long), and 35 USC 112 1st and 2nd paragraphs in 2100.


- September 28, 2009 -

I just passed today (first try). I also took the PLI course, which was very helpful in streamlining my study plan. I definitely suggest that course. However, I supplemented my study with suggested free online sites (this one) and mypatentbar (and other sites suggested from this site). The most beneficial thing for me was working exams and reviewing the questions from this site. I do believe that about half of the questions I encountered yesterday came from the 2002-2003 exams and the additional questions posted on this site.

However, I must say that it seemed like the other half dealt solely with PCT, Appeals, and 102(e)!! So, my suggested plan would be to do either a review course like PLI to get the basics - or focus on one of the free online outlines, work the exams, review these questions, and give additional focus on the previously mentioned sections.


- September 25, 2009 -

I just passed today (first try). I took the PLI course, but I think that the course is only helpful for getting a baseline understanding of patent law (which I think I already had from my courses in law school). So if you haven't taken a patent bar course, I'd recommend PLI or some other course just to familiarize yourself with the material.

As far as preparation for the exam, I think the most helpful thing was to study the old practice tests. I studied the 2002 and 2003 tests extensively. These are helpful for two reasons: First, it gets you comfortable with looking up material in the MPEP and helps give you an idea of the general concepts tests. Second, there are significant repeats on the actual exam (I think I had around 20 or so repeats). I think the first reason is the most important, and having the repeats helps to free up a lot of time to look stuff up.

Also, make sure you study the newly reported questions listed here and on http://mypatentbar.com/current-questions/ . A lot of these appeared on my exam (probably 10 or so).

Finally, note that the repeat questions will sometimes shuffle around the answer choices. Most of the repeats were verbatim, but some had moved the choices around. The key when doing the repeats is to understand the concept of why an answer choice is right AND why the others are wrong.

If you follow this, I don't think you will have much trouble. Good luck out there! This site (and sites like these) are a fantastic resource, so use them!


- September 16, 2009 -

Passed on the first try today. I spent most of my summer studying for the exam and wanted to take it early during my first year of law school.

Overall Impression: Test was not too hard if you studied for it, but it would be difficult to take it without significant studying (unless you had prior experience). I counted 25 repeat questions from the 2002 and 2003 exams.

My approach was to use the Bullseye Patent Bar materials mentioned by others on this website and over at message boards at intelproplaw.com. I used their sixteen week study guide to pace myself through the MPEP chapters and the helpful outline that was included with the study materials package. They also include the questions divided up by MPEP chapter and a helpful list of the most often repeated questions. I usually printed out a few pages of the outline at any one time and kept them with me so that I could study when I had free time.

Here is the link to the Bullseye Patent Bar Exam Materials

Take the practice tests over and over. I think having the experience of sitting through seven hours of practice tests helped me for the real thing. You should be hitting around 85-90% correct on the practice tests in order to feel confident about your chances on the real test. Also, take time to learn how to search the MPEP properly with Adobe. If you only ever use the printed MPEP, you will not learn how to search electronically. I was able to search for several correct answers during the actual test.

Good luck to everyone that is studying for it. It is a very passable test with a little bit of effort on the front end.


- August 30, 2009 -

Just passed the patent bar today on the first try (and with only a week to go until law school starts up)! I studied for about three months while working a full-time job in the lab. I had a ton of repeats:

First Section: 15 or so Repeats from the 2002 and 2003 Exams Saw about 2-3 Questions from the New Reported Questions I finished the section with 38 minutes to go and I had just enough time to go back through the 9 or 10 questions I had marked.

Second Section: 7 or so Repeats from the 2002 and 2003 Exams Saw about 7 or so Questions from the New Reported Questions I finished the section with 55 minutes to go, and I had enough time to go back through 10 or 11 questions I had marked and then went through all the questions one more time. I think I stopped the exam at 20 minutes to go and waited for my exam results.

My approach (that may seem extensive, but I know it paid off!): I used PES. I read through the four books twice trying to get a feel for hot topics. I started out going through the workbook, but I quickly stopped that because I just didn't have enough time in the day to do everything. Then I went on to the USPTO website and went through the three posted exams four times until I got my score above 90%. Next, I went through the simulated test questions through PES. I think I did about 7 50-question simulations. I averaged about 85% on those exams. Finally, I went through the new questions that have recently been reported on www.mypatentbar.com. I did those questions twice. This saved me a lot of time on the exam. If you take the time to read through, understand, and memorize the questions and all the comments that people post relating to that particular question, you will be at a tremendous advantage on the exam. Trust me on this one. There were many repeats and variations on the same topics.

Whether I got a question right or wrong, I always read through all the answers and made sure I understand why I got them wrong. When I did those three tests on the USPTO, I found I learned something new every time I went through the practice questions.

The day before the exam, I went through the October 2003 exam once and I went through all the questions and comments relating to the new questions that test takers have reported on www.mypatentbar.com.

On test day, I saw lots of repeats, variations, or questions testing the same topics. During the second section, I think the reason I got done so early was because not that many questions required a look-up in the manual. They were questions that tested basic patent concepts that I had to apply to the hypotheticals.

Good luck to everyone who is preparing for the exam! I wish you the best of luck!


- May 12, 2009

It took me a few tries but finally passed. I had a ton of repeats this time. The first section must've had about 60% repeats which I quickly breezed through. The second section started off with question I'd never seen before. They were even worded a bit differently so they could have been the beta questions. But I probably ended up getting about 40-50% repeat questions in the second section. The following are some of the questions that I remember seeing on the test. By the way, I used the PLI course but toward the end, I focused my studying on the April 2003 exam.

There's more but that's all I can remember. My test was pretty similar to the March 17, 2009 guy posted below.


- April 27, 2009 -

I took and passed the USPRE on 4/27/09. I found that a lot of the questions that are listed below in the 04/22/09 and 03/17/09 postings were asked (or variations thereof were asked). I actually ran through the questions in both of those lists in preparation and ran across many of those problems. Also, I want to recommend using www.freesocrates.com as well as this website. That website has a bank of questions that are just repeated over and over and over. You answer them online and get the answer right after you answer the question (as opposed to all of the answers at the end). You will probably encounter some questions repeatedly, but I found it to be good practice. Best of luck.


- April 25, 2009 -

I took and passed the Patent Bar on 3/5/2009. It was my goal to rush home and post these suggestions to these websites but time hasn't allowed until now.

With almost two months passed since taking the exam, the value of my "repeat questions" section has significantly diminished. Consequently, I will concentrate on my study strategy and test tips. I have put my "repeat questions" write up on the seperate page of this wiki, "Questions reportedly asked in the Patent Bar Exam", under the date March 5, 2009. Also note, I am cross-posting my notes at www.MyPatentBar.com and on my personal website.


GENERAL STUDY STRATEGY: PLI + Web + Old Exams

• PLI Resources: The vast majority of my time was spent with the PLI "Patent Bar Review" study materials. I attended the lectures in California and followed up with individual study at home in Texas. The in-person (California) lectures were identical to the CDs which came with the study materials, so if you cannot attend then consider simply purchasing the study materials used. You will not be much handicapped by studying them independently. On the other hand, the advantages of attending the live lectures may justified the added expense for you. If you need the classroom environment in order to boost your self-discipline and the availability of a Q&A session provided in the evenings, then purchase the course materials and attend the lectures. Neither of these advantages justified the extra travel and materials expense in my opinion.

• If you are going to attend the live lectures, don't do what I did and let months (years!) pass between the lectures and test taking. I allowed law school obligations preempt the examination for 2 years. In so doing, the benefits of the classes were entirely lost on me. Instead, you should schedule approximately a month or a month and a half with minimal distractions for the classroom time, review time, and examination. The compressed schedule will maximize your return on time spent.

• Web Resources: Turning away from the PLI materials, I recommend using www.MyPatentBar.com or www.patentbarquestions.com during your study process. I did not discover these resources until my last week of study; too bad for me, I could have saved much frustration by finding them sooner. They are full of helpful dialog and spot-on exam question analysis (more on that later).

• As your exam date approaches, focus on those posts discussing "repeat questions" and the dialog on how they are to be answered. These questions are very likely to pop up on the your exam.

• Old Exams: Finally, once you have covered the basics of the patent bar, spend the majority of your remaining study time working old exams. I should have done this sooner and more completely. Having only put the 2003 exams to memory for my exam day, I now realize that I should have worked every available exam question multiple times. The USPTO only provides exams through 2003, but this is sufficient because they haven't seemed to update their question bank since that time. Do this: work the tests in reverse chronological, some of the posts on the "web resources" indicate that the 2002-2003 exams are most heavily tested. • The following sections will cover my thoughts on the PLI Patent Bar Review materials and the things I did immediately prior to and during the examination.


A FEW MORE THOUGHTS ON PLI'S PATENT BAR REVIEW

• As a disclaimer, I have the PLI materials as distributed in May 2006. I suspect the lectures have been substantially updated, but I cannot verify this. • The PLI Patent Bar Review materials are excellent and worth the money as discussed earlier. • In addition to listening to the audio CDs, I recommend allocating time to these parts of the PLI materials: • (1) Focus on the (lengthy) lectures covering MPEP 700 and 2100; the examination does, indeed, test these heavily. • (2) The claim drafting materials are useful, but have a lower return on time spent for examination purposes. I suggest listening to those lectures but not dwelling on the topic. • (3) Give the PCT materials a little extra time. PCT questions appeared more than I had anticipated. See the "Repeat Questions" section below for more discussion of the form of those question. • (4) Know the 102 sections cold! Know the shortcuts (e.g., "By Another", "One Year") and what they immediately eliminate.


EXAM WEEK

• Work old tests: This is the most important thing! • Review your notes/outline, but don't get stuck on this task. Your time is much better used going over old exam questions during this time period. • When driving: I listened to the following PLI lectures: (1) Chapter Quiz Review, (2) "Anatomy of a File Wrapper", (3) Chapter 700 and 2100 lectures, (4) other summary lectures your CDs may contain.


LAST DAY PRIOR TO THE EXAM

• Know exactly where the test center is, drive there and think about whatever traffic you will be faced with the following day. • Pack your lunch for test day because you will not have enough time to get lunch and return to take the exam. • Check into your hotel early (if you live more than 30 minutes from the test center, I suggest booking a hotel near to the test center). • Review a few old tests and then go to bed! Get good night's rest.


TEST DAY

• I got up early for coffee and a review of old questions, but do whatever makes you relaxed and ready for the exam. • Arrive early (1 hour), and relax in your car for 15 minutes • Leave everything except your ID in your vehicle. Prometric does not allow personal items in the test center, including jackets, pens, pencils and cell phones. My test center, however, did have a locker to store my things during the exam.


THE EXAM

• The exam is administered on a PC and the testing software has two notable features: the first is a searchable MPEP and the second is the timer. This section of my write-up will cover both of these features and how to use them to your advantage.

• MPEP: The MPEP is given to you in its entirety on the examination, but a few handicaps make this fact less useful than it could be. • First, the chapters and appendices are all broken down into separate PDF files. Thus, to search for a term you must be able to navigate to the proper PDF file quickly. You should generally know the MPEP chapter names and general contents therein. If you get tripped up on the exam, you can check the table of contents, but skipping this step is worth a few minutes over the whole exam. • Don't get too dependant on the MPEP. If you are looking up every question you will more than likely run out of time and fail. Be sure to work practice exams under real time constraints. Some people prefer to leave all look-up questions for the end of the exam, others want to look them up as they go. You need to know your best approach before your test day. • When you do use the MPEP on the exam, be smart about it. Know what materials are in the big chapters (700 & 2100) and look there first if the question falls under these chapters. My fallback resources in the MPEP are "Appendix R -- Patent Rules" and the Index. Between these four resources I was able to knockout 6/10 of the questions I needed to lookup. Chapter 1800 (PCT) was a surprisingly important chapter also. • Probably three times during my exam the answer was "(e) All of the above" , where the components (a)-(d) were exactly from a list of alternatives in the MPEP. It was as though the PTO copied and pasted the MPEP directly into the exam. A smart MPEP search made these questions a snap to answer. • What is a smart MPEP search? Generally, it is knowing the tricks of a good PDF search. My approach is to search for the unique words or combinations of words found in the call of the question. For example, search the entire term "correspondence delivered by hand" rather than "correspondence" or "hand". Using quotes on a multiple words combination confuses the most current Adobe Acrobat Reader on Windows, but I cannot recall their effect on the ancient version of Reader used during the exam. A little trial and error will help you know how to find answers quickly on exam day.

• The Exam Timer: The time allotments are broken down as follows: (1) 15 minutes** to read the instructions, (2) 3 hours for the morning portion of the exam, (3) 1 hour lunch break, (4) 3 hours for the afternoon portion of the exam, (5) exam center survey, and (6) exam results. • ** the "15 minutes to read the instructions" may have been 10 minutes. • During the introduction time I followed the advice of previous test takers to make an answer sheet (example included); I also wrote out all of the mnemonics and tables I had invented to use as a reference during the examination period. Use this time wisely because you won't get another introduction period after lunch. • The 1 hour lunch break does not appear to have any extensions, so don't be late coming back into the exam room! I sat down at 59 minutes 45 seconds and had to get right back to work. • During the lunch break I read the answers and explanations of old exam questions. This may sound like a panicked thing to do, but it really did help. Several answers that I read in old exams during lunch came up in the afternoon session, so it paid off. You may elect to clear your mind and relax. • After the afternoon session had ended my heart was pumping pretty good. I expected to see my score report as the final second of my afternoon session elapsed. I was disappointed to find an exam center survey between me and the results. This took about ten minutes to complete and I hated ever second! Yes, everyone was courteous… just give me my score! • Eventually, you will be given your "Preliminary Test Results". If you passed, it will say so, if you fail, it will indicate your actual score. The results are "preliminary" because there is a possibility that some question will be thrown out and thereby your pass/fail designation will change as well. • Those with a preliminary pass should take heart. Upon obtaining a preliminary pass, a colleague of mine called John White (the primary teacher of PLI's Patent Bar Review), who reported that he has never heard of someone getting a preliminary pass which was later changed to a fail. White was not asked whether any preliminary "fail" has been flipped.

[As mentioned above, I have moved "repeat questions" to the seperate page, "Questions reportedly asked in the Patent Bar Exam", under the date March 5, 2009. Thanks everybody for making this website and for sharing your experiences, it really helped me a bunch!]


- April 22, 2009

Just took and passed the exam - finally! Thanks to everyone for posting great suggestions and advice and encouragement!

> Saw about 20 repeats from prior exams: Tribell (file broadening reissue within 2 yrs of issue); Beck (unexpectedly low melting point); Japan 45 day publication (abandoned); Potter (inventions were commonly owned at time of invention); Expired parking meter comparator alarm (file drawings); electric toothbrush on/off switch; Tip & moon dust eraser (does not have to disclose); overcoming 102 & 103 rejections; what 1.131 affidavits can/cannot be used for; 34.9% obvious to 35%-55% range; Nylon rope (obvious to combine); access to abandoned application; Jack's knife from Vietnam (not inventor); correcting mispelling of sole inventor's name at least expense (file ADS); product by process (not in accord: no anticipation unless each of the process steps is disclosed); know when to petition & when to appeal; what essential material can be incorporated by reference (patent, etc).

> Here are another 20 drawn from the New Questions list: When to limit action (all of the above..too informal, multiplicity,etc.); Transparent layers (select choice with "comprising..."); Mirror (not enabled); PCT filing from Costa Rica/German nationals (US not competent receiving office, and forward to IB with Filing date of x); 102e date for PCT (check if filed after 11/29/00 - if so, then 102e); Know what can/can't be faxed; No Cert of Transmission for CPA filed under 1.53(d); Best Mode (applicant does not have to designate which embodiment is his "best mode"); Spanish Phone with modified dial (file CIP); Death of Inventor (select who can't sign from a list; if Executor doesn't intervene, then what can other joint inventor do); Correcting Address of Inventor; Refund for overpayment of Small Entity (3 months); multiplicity of 900 claims (phone applicant and select claims); assignee of of entire interest can sign small entity statement; Patent X to be divided between inventors A & B (file Reissue then Divisional); Protest (does not need to identify protesting party); requirements to request oral argument (can't specify date/time); claim to benefit of earlier filing date (in first sentence of specification OR in ADS);

Thus, you would be half way there if you have command of the old repeats & new questions. The rest of the time saved can be used to search the MPEP. Here's how I prepared:

- The list of New Questions from this site and understanding where to find the reference in the MPEP - Outline from FreePatentBar.com - EasyBarPass has a list of 140+ repeat questions; you can also use the list provided on this site - Learned all the answers to the Oct/April 2003 & 2002 exams (using key words for the answers/or to search) - Went through the 2001 & 2000 exams once - For the questions that I missed, created a consolidated list in Excel as I went along listing the Exam Name, Question #, MPEP reference(706.02, 1412, 102b, etc), Topic Description (Obviousness, Reexam, etc), and Comment (notes about a particular question, or a key rule to learn). You can then sort/search/cross reference the list by topic (or exam or question) and then review your list. I found that this really helped me identify my weak areas, and served as a resource for my final review.

Good luck!


Mar. 21, 2009: Passed today, many repeats.. If you reside in the Eastbay region I would suggest using the San Jose center (they have 17 inch LCDs). I would advice against the Fremont center (they had 15 inch flickering CRT monitors, I had a bad experience there previously). I called and inquired about the hardware before scheduling today's test.


- Mar. 17, 2009

Passed it today. Used PatBar study material, which was not bad and did focus more on

appeals, PCT, other things. Read through forums such as this one as well.

Got lots and lots of old questions, so maybe I was lucky. Questions I remember from memory:


- Tribell (10.03.16a)

- Platinum baseball asking for prior art date

- ABCD-ABCDE-BCDE (10.03.2p)

- 2 questions on adding/correcting priority in PCT

- 52 tables

- Aluminum foil airplane (10.03.46p): A variant question #46 citing a Toy Plane with Foil Wings

from the October 2003 (pm) exam is in the Prometric database.

- Lip gloss

- John Jones typo correction (it was a variation of the old question, answer is to file ADS) (10.03.18p)

- Final rejection 2 month response & >3 month advisory action

- Deceptive intent

- Binding effect of judicial decision on USPTO

- Spot the 102(d) rejection

- 2 questions on affirmance of rejection by board and new ground of rejection

- 2 questions on when you can appeal

- Several questions about what constitutes prima facie anticipation or obviousness rejections and how to overcome them

- "What type of rejection?" question where 3 answers were double patenting,

one was 102(e) (correct answer) and one was none of the above

- Correcting inventorship when one inventor does not agree

- Multiplicity rejection

- Incorrect 1.97(e) IDS statement submitted after receiving art from foreign office

- 103(a) rejection using 102(e) prior art before Nov. 29, 1999

- What must examiner do when BPAI affirms some rejections and reverses rejections on dependent claims

- Claiming foreign priority on design patent that issued on same day as filed (still doable within 6 months)

- Third party asking USPTO for info about a competitor's patent app that has non-publication request on it

(I picked (a) ask FIU for publication or issue status, but could be (b) can only use PAIR)

- Question of whether practitioner can use only opinions without facts to rebut obviousness (no!)

- Question about treatment of secret material in re-exam (this one might be beta - was a "which one is incorrect"

question but more than one answer was wrong and there was no multiple answer option)

- Separate verification statement

- Rights of non-signing inventor

- Death of inventor where there was an assignment

- Means-plus function language

- 102 rejection where reference disclosed a value within claimed range - how to overcome

- Question about petition to reinstate patent after goofed maintenance payment

- Perfecting priority claim after a rejection in a Japan->PCT->US national stage app

(need to submit translation, but US already has certified copy from IB)

- Correcting mistaken claim to small entity status

- Filing date when drawing is deemed to be required in the app

- Requesting additional drawing after notice of allowance (just send it in)

- Correct way of using supplemental oath/declaration to correct mailing address of one inventor

(needs to have entire inventive entity)

- Non-publication requestion followed by Japan filing and 45 days (SOL!)

- Adequacy of protest filing (no good because filed after publication)

- Time to correct appeal brief (1 month#30 days)

- When can board remand

- Situation where Certificate of Correction can be used (correction of inventorship is correct answer;

answers about correcting 119/120 benefits are close to but do not conform exactly to CFR requirements)

- 2 questions about filing non-English PCT apps in USPTO

- Moon dust eraser

- Variation of double rejection for enablement/written description

(facts state that applicant submitted sufficient evidence to overcome both, so answer is both rejections must be withdrawn)

- Surprisingly, no 102(e) prior art date questions



March 6, 2009: I passed yesterday. The only sites you'll need for success are this one, http://mypatentbar.com, and http://www.freepatentbar.com. And the best thing about those 3 sites is they are FREE. My recommendation is before you do any old exams, use mypatentbar's study guide and this site's "key things to know" section for a few days so you get an overview of the MPEP. Once you get through those study guide, THEN start doing the exams from 2002-2003 on freepatentbar so you get used to doing the exam on a computer. I did each exam from 2002-2003 twice, the second time through making sure I knew the reason why each correct answer was right (and equally as important, the reason why each incorrect answer was wrong). Also, getting an idea of some of the new questions people have reported was definitely helpful, not not essential as compared to knowing the 2002-2003 questions down cold or knowing how to search the MPEP effectively. I say that because you give yourself so much extra time at the end by being able to, within literally seconds, answer the 2002-2003 repeats. Thus, in return you have time at the end to dig through the MPEP to find the answer to something new or tricky.

As for my actual exam, I found the PM session to be noticeably easier than the AM session, one of the main reasons being the PM session had more repeats while the AM session had more new questions. I'd say there were about 15-20 repeats total between the two sessions, most of them coming from the 2003 exams. As others have reported, PCT and reissue are tested heavily.

Good luck to everyone!


Feb 23, 2009: Just passed! whoo hoo. thanks to the guy who posted the link to http://www.freepatentbar.com. Wish I found it sooner...


- Feb 17, 2009

Tons of repeats from 2003 (I was nervous before the test because 2003 seemed like such a long time ago

and there was nothing else out there that was more current)


* April 03 AM (TOTAL - 4.5)

- #26(IDS missing key ref. known to applicant prior to filing);

- #2 (Jap filing after non-pub request, 45 days);

- Q. similar to #31 (perhaps 4 out of 5 choices the same - separate verification statement);

- #30 (Claim 1 has one gas mixture comprising of some gases, second gas mixture consisting of some gases- proper dependent claims);

- #44 (prior art composition disclosing ranges of polypropylene and polyethylene);


* April 03 PM (TOTAL - 3.5)

- #28(counting number of claims for payment - ans. 147 claims);

- #16 (copper substrate defined in spec);

- similar to #46 (qualifying 102(b) references);

- #13 (Small entity status mistakenly claimed);


* Oct 03 AM (TOTAL - 6.5)

- #16 (Tribell);

- #7(compound alleviating pain and curing cancer);

- #6(reexam - time to respond);

- similar to #8 (102(d) prior art - a new option being a german app that printed immediately);

- #23 (step for crossing);

- #26 (when a supplemental oath is treated as an amendment);

- #9 (2 semiconductor apps: one predates reference, other post-dates it)


* Oct 03 PM (TOTAL - 6)

- #2(ABCD issued as patent, BCDE submitted for reissue);

- #10(3d party submitted prior art);

- #13 (mixture Y made by process Q1 different from one made by process Q2);

- #25 (Orig app 2000, CIP 2002, claims based on new matter);

- #38 (XYZ corp as assignee);

- #50(102(g))


Other questions:


New questions (and/or q.s that I am not able to find in my set of prior exams)

- Fruit flavored Lipgloss;

- Martinet - prior art - can you use french patent describing structure but not claimed function;

- When can a 131 affidavit be used? (two answer choices I remember are (i) to overcome a 102(a)reference; to overcome a 102(a) and 102(g) reference);

- What actions can a soon-to-be assignee (assignment papers have not been filed as of now) take? Appoint an attorney to prosecute patent, etc.;

- Can 35 USC 112 P. 1 be used to reject amended claims submitted to the Board in an appeal? Ans - Yes;

- 102(b) -on sale bar - correct answer - an offer to sell invention that was rejected;

- Examiner's amendment - red ink;

- Failure to claim priority to foreign patent before issue - can it be cured in a reissue?

App has 6 claims, #4 deleted by applicant who then wants to add it back later. Ans: must add as claim 7


One piece of unsolicited advice - when practicing - use the pdf of the MPEP and for each question you read, use the one word or phrase that links the answer choices in your "Search" within Adobe Reader and choose between Appendix R or the usual suspects (700, 2100 etc.). You will get good at it - you will be confident enough to try it on the exam. Trust me, you will almost always end up finding the one sub-sub-sub-section where the choices are picked out from (normally not in App. R). By exam time, I could find the answer to almost any question in under 5 minutes - you have 3 min 36 sec per q. - if you spot 10 repeats - that gives you more than enough time to find the *correct* answer to more than 80% of the remaining questions. You will also be able to recognize when your search is not leading anywhere - and give up after say, 6 min. Playing the numbers - that's enough for a 70% overall score.

Good luck!


Feb 12, 2009: I didn't pass this time but there were approx 10 questions from each section that were repeats. The questions that I can remember are: Japan 45 days, piecemeal, moondust, tribel, lipgloss, 8 dependent claims, bloc. The first section was pretty straight forward but the second half was pretty tough. Not as many PCT questions as I expected.


Jan 18, 2009: I found a great website that offers all the previous USPTO exams for free in a simulator at http://www.freepatentbar.com. Just thought I'd pass it along.


Jan 14, 2009: I also took the exam and passed.  :D I had around 10 repeat questions for each section: Tribel, Bloc, Moondust, ABCDE, Japan 45 days, baseball as prior art, 150 degrees, invoke 112, paragraph 6, fruit lipgloss, aluminum airplane, what assignee cannot do, death of inventor, a LOT about the US as a RO. Lots on assignments, nothing about claim counting. I studied approximately 175 hours with PLI, this site, and mypatentbar.com. The discussion forum really helped and so did taking Oct 2003 over and over again.


Dec 1st, 2008: Took the exam and passed. I had about 10 repeats from the Oct 2003 exam in each section, and maybe 1 question in each section from exams prior to that.

From Oct 2003 exam I had: Tribel, inventor bloc, 147 claims, moondust eraser, some PCTs questions, questions testing Chpt 2100, Electric toothbrush, assignment to XYZ, what's required to make sure assignee is printed on divisional patent (make sure name is on issue fee transmittal form, answer (e), J J Smithy, Cell phone with Watson and Bell prior art, Japan 45 days, expired parking meters.

From new questions posted here and on mypatentbar.com (also a great website), I had: titanium ball, Velcro, mirrors/reflective surface, piecemeal examination, Puerto Rico applicants filing IA with US/RO, Sweden applicants filing IA with US/RO, investigating fraud, death of inventor (practitioner was partial assignee), what assignee not yet of record can do (four they can’t do, one they can..file an amendment, submit small entity status, sign terminal disclaimer, power of attorney), hair gel.

VERY IMPORTANT TIP FOR FIRST TIME TEST TAKERS: The first time I took the exam, my MPEP was setup such that I did not have a listing of topics on the left, that you simply click on and it will jump to that section of the chapter. I didn't know that it was possible to have this, and part of the reason I didn't pass was because it was very difficult to find anything. This time, the MPEP had the listings as default, and I played around and figured out how to hide or show it. If you do not see the listing when you open up the MPEP, know that it does exist!! Try clicking on the toolbars on the lower left hand corner. The tutorial does not go over this!!!

FOR THOSE THAT ARE STUDYING FROM THE PLI REVIEW COURSE: I thought the PLI review course was great, but Chapters 1200 (Appeal), 1400 (Reissue), 1800 (PCT), and 2200 (Reexam) leave a lot to be desired!!! You will be very frustrated if you do not put in extra work on these chapters!!! To supplement my review of these chapters I studied from mypatentbar.com and verified that it was all accurate by reading the MPEP. I did not find a single mistake. So again, mypatentbar.com is a great resource for studying for the exam, and it also has a lot of reported questions.

I do not agree with what Nov 21, 2008 said about a review course not being necessary... sure, if you have all the time in the world you could probably learn it all on your own... But it will take much, much, much, longer for you to do so. Unless you absolutely do not have the funds for it, buy the course and then sell it when your done to recoup some of the costs. You will be ready to start your career so much sooner.

Good Luck, and don't be let down if you didn't pass the first time... you will know what to expect the second time.


Nov 21, 2008: Took the exam today for the first time and passed. I've been studying on and off for the last 2 months, I probably invested 100-150 hours but it is hard to say. I did the 300 questions on the USPTO website 3 times very carefully, the last time through forcing myself to take them at real-time speed. I found that on the 3rd time through, I was able to achieve ~90% on these tests. I also read through the material on this site once, prior to the last time I took the USPTO practice questions. I recognized about 1/2 of the questions in some form or another (some verbatim repeats and some modified a little or a _lot_ from what I had seen), about 40 questions were new but fairly clear with only brief to moderate MPEP verification necessary, and about 10 were new and difficult and required lots of digging for info in the MPEP.

When is an examiner most likely to consider an amendment filed during appeal? The answers were (a) 3 months after a supplemental answer has been filed (b) four months after an answer, a reply was belatedly filed (c) 3 months after a reply has been filed (d) 10 days after a reply has been filed, after the examiner mails the practitioner and says the reply will be entered and jurisdiction will return to the Board or (e) none of the answers are in accord with USPTO practice and policy. The answers may not be totally written correctly here, with regard to what kind of document was filed in the appeal. I picked (d) after thinking (e) for a while, I couldn't find anything that really matched up with this in the MPEP.

There was a long question where at the start it describes an application for a chemical as having adequate description but it does not say how to make the chemical. The examiner objects to the application under 112 1st P for lack of description because it doesn't say how to make it, and also objects under 112 1st P because it is not enabling. The question specifically says that there is nothing in the prior art that says how to make the chemical, although the chemical is known, and also they throw in there that the examiner also found a publication reference that antedates the claims by over a year and so is usable under 102(b). The practitioner responds with evidence that a poosita would know how to make the chemical based on what is disclosed in the specification. The practitioner also points out that the data and information in the application that would enable poosita is also enough to adequately describe the invention. What should the examiner do? There were several answers that varied back and forth between keep one objection and remove the other, or remove all rejections because they were never proper in the first place, but I thought the correct answer said that both objections should be overcome, since there was adequate description and because enablement can be satisfied if a poosita is enabled by the application. I felt because of how the question began, with the statement that the description was adequate, meant the description objection wasn’t proper, and the practitioner responded correctly to that in the correct answer.

I had Tribell, Tip, Toothbrush, variation on the Q with conception in foreign country and publication in Canada, Q on assignment to XYZ with subsequent divisional and what's required to make sure assignee is printed on divisional patent (make sure name is on issue fee transmittal form, answer (e)), several international app claims priority to X and what is earliest possible 102(e) date Qs, Qs about what examiner does after various actions by the appeal board, 2 Qs on what is the day from which late fees are determined when a practitioner files response within 2 months to a final rejection vs after 2 months, several Qs testing understanding of 112 and the separate requirements within 1st P, I had the "how do you properly invoke 112 P 6" question, I had a variation on the how many claims Q and it asked how many dependant claims are there in a multiple dependant situation (the answer was 8), I had the Q about utility where application shows utility plus ability to cure cancer and correct answer was applicant doesn't have to show it really cures cancer since there is already utility shown for something else, _several_ questions testing knowledge that you cannot swear behind a statutory bar, several questions testing knowledge that 131 affidavits are not an appropriate response to double patenting rejections, several questions testing knowledge that distinguishing the claims gets you out of some 102 rejections with a lot of nonsense answers mixed in to throw you off, a Q testing knowledge that when patent attorney has no ownership or inventorship in the invention he/she cannot sign oath/declaration when the inventor is unavailable, and many others you'll see in prior posts.

Remember when you are taking the test, when you run into something you cannot figure out, pick the best answer and move on because you’ll be able to score many points on other questions and you don’t need to get them all right. I really liked the way the testing software allowed you to "mark" a question so that you could come back to it at the end of the test, this is very convenient and I did not feel the need to make any marks on my scratch paper about which questions I was/wasn't secure about.

I don’t think a patent bar review course is necessary if you can motivate yourself to figure out with the MPEP why answers are right or wrong on the practice questions supplied by the PTO and on this site. Of course, everyone learns differently, if you learn best from someone lecturing than maybe it would be helpful for you to take a course. The best way for me to learn this material was to just solve the questions again and again, I learned tons of new stuff every time I went through them.

My advice: Do not be afraid to read the MPEP to understand how things work, it has all the answers, trust it over all outlines or other resources you can find. There is simply no substitute for playing around with it, and trying to figure out what would happen in various scenarios you can envision. I found the html version very helpful on the USPTO website, it's great to have the sections hyperlinked. I did not feel this was a memorization test. It is problem solving, you just have to know (and know how to find) the rules to follow. I passed this test by reading the Q and figuring out what they were after, and doing a quick check in the MPEP to make sure my answer was right or to find the answer in the first place and make sure the other answers were wrong, and then I moved on. After you do enough questions, if you have spent enough time really looking through the MPEP to understand why answers are right and wrong, you'll find you can do this for any given situation, however unfamiliar, and that is what will get you though all the questions you've never heard of or thought of before.


14nov08: First thing first -- many thanks for the tips from all the other test takers before me. I passed it this week, and in reflecting back, this was the best site for my preparation.

For preparation, I chewed through the old tests from 2003-2000. In retrospect, 2003-2002 like someone suggested here would have been fine. I overkilled it, but I guess extra info won't hurt. I had most of the new questions mentioned below from the Maryland person. I'm in total agreement with all of his/her (great) comments. I also vouch for the usefulness of the EasyBarPass software. It's nothing fancy, but it saves you a lot of time from having to print and dig through the pages the answers (save a few trees). It's worth every penny I paid. Easily the best tool that I had to grind through the old exams. I also ignored the timer for the first time through, as I took time and read the MPEP sections for the right answers, and equally important, understand why the other options were incorrect. The old questions helped me to know what's important to the USPTO. The subsequent tries, I keep up with the timer and allotting 3-5 minutes per question.

One final note on EasyBarPass, you have to ignore the sales pitch on the website that said you can recognize 60 questions. It seems the questions are pulled from a fairly large database where most of the old questions have been purged or altered (significantly in some cases). The version I bought a couple months ago didn't have any of the 2005-6-7 questions they advertised. Perhaps they have revised it recently by adding some questions discussed here. Regardless, it's a great tool.

EasyBar helps with the old questions, and this website helps with the new questions. It's also helpful because I get to see that the test is like nowadays -- the mixture of old and new questions. It is wise to study everything discussed here. Everything! Old and new questions!

I also got the Bullseye as recommended by someone here. I think it's a nice package, compiling some stuffs discussed here like the old questions that regularly popped up. A couple of sets of PTO slides that were great review materials for 102(e) dates and benefit claims under 35 USC 119, 120, 121. These are in the MPEP too (and you can download from PTO site), but I liked the clarity of the slides and the convenience. I didn't use it for anything else otherwise, but it could be ok for someone else.

Overall, with the above tools, I was well prepared. I've done several graduate tests before (GRE, GMAT, ...), but haven't run into anything that's strictly memorization and little else. Less challenging for those with photographic memory, but tougher for others. More importantly, everyone's experience is slightly different because of the computer testing. For example, I thought that I would get 10-15 questions per session of old questions. I counted maybe 5 per session, at best. On the new questions discussed at this website, based on the comments here, I thought I would have 10 things per session because of the frequency that they are being discussed. I get another 6-7 each session. That is, about 75% of my test was new. Not as lucky as the person below who reported 20 recognizable questions per session. Closer to the experience of the Maryland person of 10/session. However, because you study the old exams, you know what the issues are, and you know where to dig in the MPEP. That's the value of the old exams.

For the new questions, I recall a healthy concentration on PCT (15 or so), reissuances (maybe 10), appeals (maybe 10), 102(e) dates (maybe 5-6), RCE and reexamination. Several tough new questions on PCT bridging to US patent dates for 102(e) prior art, as well as a couple on PCT bypass (US continuation off of PCT that never entered National stage).

Questions discussed here that still appeared as of Nov. 2008: Titanium ball, divisional reissues, new grounds of rejection on appeal, investigating deceptions, Tribell, 52 tables, piecemeal examination, supplemental oath on reissue, toy plane and aluminum foil, death of inventor (practioner was partial assignee), court decision binding/not binding on PTO, multiplicity, lip gloss, and moondust.

Good luck to all those after me.


11-13-2008: I'm scheduled to take the exam. I had been doing old exams (like everyone says to do). Printing them takes a lot of ink/paper. Some people were talking about some other bar review courses. There's a web site at freesocrates.com. There are some USPTO questions available. The site says there's 40 questions "in rotation", but I think there's more. Still looks like it's under construction. But I noticed the Tribell and Moondust question repeats. Maybe someone will also find it useful. It'd be good if more questions were added too before I take the exam.



- I took the exam yesterday in Maryland. Missed it by a handful. The look of the exam is near perfect match to

the Easybarpass software (MPEP is a bit different) and the minimizing of the window is odd- you can make it a

bit smaller, move it around, but you cannot toggle between the MPEP and the exam window- you have to close the MPEP.

It does open to the same chapter/location when you reopen it though, which was helpful.


8 questions on PCT

I saw quite a few repeats and a few variations (~25 total):

-52 tables
-Potter
-Smith (DRAM)
-Japan 45 days
-file as small entity and then find out the next day that your client licensed to big entity the day before (can’t remember the exam)
-Laurel, Abbott, Hardy
-What can be filed by fax
-two questions on oaths (1.63) (one was which of the five is unacceptable, missing signatures, filing three oaths for three inventors (one signature per oath), missing dates
-Parking meter (10/15/03 PM #28)
-10/15/03 AM #26 variation
-question on what assignee not yet of record can do (four they can’t do, one they can..file an amendment, submit small entity status, something with a practicioner (hire/fire))
-one related to inventor that died (where he had assigned rights to company) who can keep prosecuting until someone intervenes
-Piecemeal examination
-Bloc
-Smith laminate (variation)
-Obviousness (IX on mypatentbar)
-Board decisions (XXIII on mypatent bar) 4/15/03 AM #37
-Design patent in country X (variation)
-Titanium baseball
-Tribell
-Moondust
-Foil wing airplane
-lip gloss

I need to know the old exams a bit better for the next try. There were a few that I recognized as repeats (or variations) that I later checked that I missed (picked the wrong of the last two choices)

Quite a few dealing with appeals (5-6).

I made up my scratch paper the way someone else suggested and I thought it was helpful:


           Answers                     Confidence (1-10)              Keywords, MPEP sections

1. A [s] B[/s] C [s] D[/s] E

2.

3.


I numbered 1-50 for each session (during the Prometric tutorial, where you get 15 minutes to review before the exam begins), then as I went through I would put down letters and mark them off as I ruled them out. I also put down my answer and circled it. That was helpful for a couple of questions where I forgot to indicate my answer on the computer screen so when I went to review and checked for the next unanswered, I could refer to my sheet and fill it in.

One thing that I did in the AM session, that I thought didn’t work that well (for me anyways) was I went through and read and answered all 50 questions. That took me about 1 hour 45 minutes. Then I went back and started looking at the questions I had marked…which was too numerous. I had about 30 of the 50 that I wanted to check something on, and I got bogged down trying to find some of them. I think the last 10 or 12 questions I had marked I didn’t get to look at again.

In the PM session, I changed it up and looked up things in the MPEP as I went, keeping a good eye on my time to make sure I wouldn’t end up with a big pile of unanswered questions at the end. After doing it this way, I marked only 3 questions and finished with about 7 minutes left. I had really looked at the 3 marked as much as I thought I could, but I did a bit more digging on them in the MPEP to confirm or reject the answer I had settled on.

I thought my PM section was much easier than my AM, but that could have been flavored by more beta questions. Hard to tell for sure.


I too first-try passed on September 11th.

Overall I thought that my version of the exam was harder than the 02/03 exams but it was still manageable, as in it wasn't ridiculous. Between the repeated questions that everyone knows about from the 02/03 exams and the "reported" questions from here, I had approximately 20 repeats PER SESSION! I marked each question on my scratch paper that I recognized and I had around 20 for both the AM and the PM session.

In case anyone out there studying is curious, here is what I did to prepare:

I bought the Bullseye study materials from eBay for I believe $25.00. I started by reading the outline they give you and then going over the old problems that they have grouped according to MPEP chapter. Once I started getting an I idea of what the test was about I started taking the 02 and 03 exams. Overall, I took the April 02 and October 02 tests two times and I took the April 03 and October 03 tests three times. A few days ago I got 90+% on both of the 03 exams. For the last couple of days I just drilled the repeated questions (there was a packet that came with Bullseye) and then I read - and re-read - the "reported" questions on here. For better or for worse, I'm not certain that I could have passed the exam without the help of people reporting the new questions that they have seen on the exam - it definitely helped my zero-in with my studying. In total, I studied 150 hours over the summer but it probably helped that I had a survey IP class that gave me a little headstart re: patents.

I won't go into unnecessary detail about what questions I got but I would definitely say that anyone who is planning on taking the test should look over the questions on this site at least 2 or 3 times the week before the test. I read through them before I went into the test and then I looked at my print-out of them again over lunch. I finished all 50 questions in each session with about 1.5 hours to spare - this gave me plenty of time to look up all the marked questions I had. I probably looked up around 20 questions in the MPEP per session. Overall, I thought the search function on the MPEP was pretty easy and even though you cannot minimize the MPEP while you have it open, you can close the MPEP and it will still be in the same place if you click the "MPEP" button again (as long as you don't navigate away from that question) or you can just drag the window off the screen if you need to look at the question again.

I guess one thing to add that I haven't really noticed on the boards is that I got a decent amount (maybe 4-5) of questions regarding "restrictions." Specifically, I remember 2 questions that dealt with "combination/subcombination" vis-a-vis restrictions (MPEP 806.05) that I definitely had to look up...who knows, they may have just been beta questions. I also only got 1-2 questions dealing with PCT and 102(e) priority date - had a lot more PCT questions dealing with improper/lacking claim to priority and what you have to do to perfect priority.

Overall, it was a tough test, obviously. But, at the same time, as I was going through the exam I felt pretty confident that I would pass. It was probably because I recognized so many questions that I knew and I had plenty of time to go back and look up the ones I was unsure about. One final tip: I know people have talked about this strategy before but I think it is worth reiterating - it helped me to take the 15 minutes at the beginning of the test (for the tutorial) and make 2 answer sheets (numbered 1-50 with ABCDE) and then to mark the correct answer for each question on it along with any additional notes (for example: I would write a number between 1 and 5 correlating with how confident I was about the answer I chose so with my extra time I could start with the 1's (basically a bad guess) and then work my way up to the 3s (educated guess))and look them up in the MPEP.

Hope this helps someone. Good luck on the exam. This site is awesome.


- Sept 11, 2008

Just took (and passed) the exam on my first try. I have previously done the PLI take-home class and then spent 1 week (4 hours/day) studying in general, and 1 week (4 hours/day) grinding through the practice exams over and over - especially the April and October 2003 exams.

I thought that this exam was much harder than the practice exams. The morning session terrified me - I only had 3-4 repeat questions and tons of esoteric detail questions. The afternoon session was considerably better, as it had a lot more repeats. The non-repeat questions were still pretty tough, so you need to be able to look things up. During the practice exams, I usually finished the exams in about 1 hour 45 mins. During the real exam, I needed absolutely every minute, because there seemed to be a lot more nitpicky details questions that required you to look stuff up.

Here is a list of questions that I think I remember seeing. Please note: many of these were presented a different variation than you see in the practic eexams. Be really careful, the variations are sometimes quite significant (changing the question call or a key fact so that the outcome is very different than past exams)


APR 2003 AM: 1, 2, 12 (definitely a variation), 22, 24 (definitely a variation), 25, 37

APR 2003 PM: 4, 12, 13, 22 (definitely a Variation), 32

OCT 2003 AM: 6, 7, 16, 17, 19 (definitely a variation), 26, 31, 41 (definitely a variation), 44

Oct 2003 PM: 2, 6, 13, 18 (definitely a variation), 28, 30, 32,


  • Moon Dust, Lip Gloss, Aluminium Foil Toy Airplane, Titanium Ball, CD-ROM
  • A LOT on appeal (including 2-3 questions on knowing what to do when the board affirms some claims and rejects some claims - both for examiner and for the applicant, 1 question on what the time period is to correct a deficient appeal brief)
  • a LOT of PCT (quite a few that talked about the role of the US as a receiving office, and what happens if you aren't a resident or don't submit your int'l application in english. surprisingly, no 102(e) date problems)
  • No RCE questions
  • A question on the effect of a District Court ruling on the validity/invalidity of a patent in a subsequent reexam


That's about all I can remember. Good luck to those studying!


I, too, passed the bar on my first try (7-11-08), but unfortunately I had maybe 4 repeat questions, at the most. I followed other poster's advice to take the old exams over and over, which is helpful because you familiarize yourself with the structure of the questions, etc. But my exam was very heavy on reissue, reexam, protest, and APPEAL. Lots on appeal, such as what the examiner can do and when, amendments during, and other topics that PLI sort of blew past. I would definitely take a close look at chapters 700, 1200, 1400, 1800, 1900, 2100.


- 6-11-2008

I passed yesterday on my first attempt. I prepared using the PLI home course, then I took each of the 2002 and 2003 exams three times each, and I read a little on this page to familiarize myself with some of the new questions.

The first time through the 2002 and 2003 exams, I averaged 74%. The second time through, my average was 88%. The third time through (during the past week), my average score was 94% and the lowest score for any one section (50 questions) was 92%. (Yes, I kept a spreadsheet of my practice scores.)

I expected the "real" exam to be a bit more difficult, because I figured the new questions would be tougher and there would be a lot more PCT stuff. There were probably about 25-30 repeat questions from 2002-2003 exams. There were about 7-8 PCT questions. Many of the questions that were not repeats (and not PCT) were similar to the 2002 and 2003 questions in form, substance, and difficulty. Overall, I felt the exam was the same level of difficulty as the 2002 and 2003 exams, or MAYBE slightly more difficult.


Some of the repeat questions

-Canceled matter as PA (Apr 03 PM #48)

-Inert gas (Apr 03 AM #30)

-Copper substrate (Oct 03 AM #4, Apr 03 PM #16)

-Bloc - utility = alleviate pain (Oct 03 AM #7, Apr 03 PM #32)

-Slight variation on 102(d) question (Oct 03 AM #8)

-DRAM (Oct 03 AM #9)

-Step for crossing the road (Oct 03 AM #23)

-Supplemental oath as an amendment (Oct 03 AM #26)

-Late IDS when client knew about PA all along (Oct 03 AM #34)

-Allowance after abandonment after appeal (Variation on Oct 03 AM #38)

-Japan/nonpublication request/45 days (Oct 03 AM #44, Apr 03 AM #2)

-One hundred forty-seven claims (Oct 03 AM #50, Apr 03 PM #28)

-ABCD/ABCDE/BCDE (Oct 03 PM #2)

-3rd Party Submission - Japanese publication (Oct 03 PM #10)

-Beck - Mixture Y with melting point of 150F (Oct 03 PM #11, Apr 03 AM #22)

-Polyethylene/polypropylene range (obviousness of ranges) (Apr 03 AM #44)

-Issue fee transmittal form - XYZ Company (Oct 03 PM #38, Apr 03 PM #11)

-Application Data Sheet (Oct 03 PM #43)

-Mirror (parallel/perpindicular)

-Spanish phone

-Hair gel

-Lip gloss

-Assignment to practitioner, inventor dies (I said practitioner may continue because of the partial interest)

-Documents an Assignee Not of Record can sign (answer is small entity statement)

-Indefinite Claim using 'high'

-When is restriction requirement not appropriate (A: when made with the Final rejection)

-Despite all the questions on old exams about when a 1.131 or 1.132 affidavit is appropriate or inappropriate, I did not have any questions on this. Also very little (maybe 1 question?) on design patents, and nothing on plant patents. NOTHING on PTE/PTA. Nothing on proper Markush or proper multiple dependent claims.

-There were a few questions with a new format, and I wonder if these might be beta questions. These questions would give a statement of patent office policy before the question. Example: "In the course of [some event during patent prosecution], an examiner does X, then the [applicant/BPAI/etc] must do Y. If the examiner does Z, what may the applicant do next in accordance with MPEP?" There were about 4 questions like this, and I thought it was helpful because that introductory statement gets you pointed in the right direction -- you know what area they are asking about, and the question is typically on a narrow issue within that topic.


6-05-2008: Sad to say that I scored a 68 when I took it today. I took it before in January and scored only 51 though this one seemed much harder. Lots of PCT, ex-Parte Rexam, and interference questions. I was much more adept at looking stuff up this time using the PDF viewer. However, there were still questions for which I could not find answers to in the MPEP.

Several that puzzled me included the following:

1. Notice of Allowance received but have not paid issue fee. Foreign associate sends a reference that is relevant but not previously considered. Your client does not want to pay for an RCE but will pay to have reference considered.

Choices were: - PTO will consider reference w/o having to pay a fee. (I chose this one) - PTO will consider reference only if you pay a fee. - PTO will automatically file an RCE and charge you for it.


Another one had to do with re-exam, choose what does not comport with PTO practice.

I narrowed it down to: - Cannot get an extension of time to respond to a 2 month period for a response. (I chose this because you can get an extension under 1.55) - Can extend time up to 6 months to respond to Final office action. ( extensions were possible but I wasn't sure about extending to 6 months).


Multiple-Dependent claims: - 1 is indep, 2 depends from 1, 3 depends from 2, 4 depends from 2 and 3, 5 depends from 3, 6 depends from 2, 3, and 5.

I counted 8 dependent claims.


Saw some repeaters, including Tribell, moon dust eraser, etc. Very few questions on claims and more questions on useless crap that nobody uses during actual patent prosecution.



- 5-09-2008


I took the exam today and passed. The message at the end of the test said

"Preliminary test results show that you passed.You will receive your official exam results in due course".

It really helps to review the past exam questions, particularly all of the sessions in 2003.

It frees up time at the end of the exam so you can consult the MPEP on questions where you are unsure.

I had about 30 minutes to do so before the end of each session.


  • Here are previous exams questions I got:


Apr 15 '03 AM: 26 and 29;

Oct 15 '03 AM: 6,13,22,26,44

Oct 15 '03 PM: 4,30,40,42


  • Other questions if not mentioned already:


-Aroma Therapy, DRAM, Piecemeal, Crossing the Road, Compound Y utility question, ABCD>BCDE>ABCDE reissue,

Supplemental Oath as amendment, Indefinite claim using "high", Mirror question

-Spanish Phone, but with a twist: Wants to modify in US utility CIP with new dialing pad.

Definitely after 6 months design application, 102(d); but wants it in utility CIP application.

-Trade Secret Question: Examiner opens up sealed trade secret packets but does not use.

Is it necessary to file petition to expunge before mailing of NIRC? Will they be available to the public? MPEP 724

-Hair gel: Similar to Einstein/Weismann question(Apr 17 '02, Q37), application filed before Nov, 29, 1999.

Thus ex parte reexamination seems to be correct answer, even though inter partes is there as answer choice,

it does not apply since application filed before Nov 29, 1999.

-Correcting errors in Provisional Application, where 3 figures are mentioned in the cover sheet,

but receive a NOMP from OIPE where only 2 figures in application. What can you do?

File amendment, petition, or file whole new application among the answers.

-What can assignee not of record do (sign small entity form was the answer), but all options listed in MPEP 324.

-Lip Gloss: 102(b) question, where she files application more than 1 year after experimental testing began,

but used lip gloss as party gag after experimenting was over for about 2 months before filing application.

Is it a 102(b) disqualification?

-Combinations and sub combinations, scenarios where examiner would restrict. 4 choices and "all of the above" as choice.

-Maintenance fee paid timely by attorney of record, but forgot to include any info about patent or application number.

Under what conditions would he use Form 1.377

-Certificate of Correction after patent issues. What can it be used for.

only logical answer listed is to add inventor's name that was accidentally left out.

-Inventor dies before filing patent application but had already given part interest in invention to lawyer of record

(who has power of attorney) to pay for his services. I interpreted this to mean lawyer is assignee. What will happen?

Is Power of Attorney still intact or must a new Power of Attorney be granted by legal representative, heirs, etc.

-Very tricky question where PCT filed after Nov 29, 2000 in German language in Germany and designates US.

Applicant claims priority to a US application or provisional application (I do not remember which).

WIPO publishes it in German language. Then it enter national stage in US, and Office sends invitation to correct,

for missing oath (but does not mention translation) and applicant completes this task on a particular date.

It does NOT say application ultimately publishes in English. Each of the other events has dates associated with it.

What is the 102(e) date.? I did not know answer, was it US provisional application ? or FOT scenario?

I felt that the application would not be eligible for 102(e) date as question was presented.

The fifth choice of potential answers was that none of dates listed was correct, which is the one I selected.

It was not quite the same as saying "it would be ineligible for 102(e) and would only get a 102a and 102b date

since this is after Nov 29, 2000.


- 03-01-08

I passed the exam today. This sight was a great help. I did the BarBri patent bar DVD course. I would say that I had at least 6 PCT questions. Most of them were pre-11/29/00 questions. I have a tough time memorizing that stuff, so my plan was to go to the MPEP, 708, and go look at the examples that have in diagram. Then I would would match up the question to one of the sample diagrams that fit. I KNOW EVERYONE SAYS THIS, BUT MEMORIZE ALL THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT PEOPLE SAY ARE CURRENTLY ASKED ON THE COMPUTER EXAM!!! Get the list of about 150 questions on here from the old exams that have been asked, do them all. Of the ones you miss, do them them again, and then if you miss them again, do them again until you get every single one right. You're throwing away easy points if you don't do that. Here are the ones I remember. April 2000 AM: 17, 42, 47. April 2003 AM: 2, 17, 37, 41. April 2003 PM: 12, 32, 38, 44, October 2003 AM: 7, 13, 16, 24, 38, 44, October 2003 PM: 6, 29, 50. I can't find it, but I also had the previously asked question about the number of dependant claims being 8. So that's 21 questions that I can think of, maybe there were a few others. If the Aroma Therapy question isn't in the numbers I put up, that one was on my exam too. I had Tribbel, the question about an inventor giving a 40% assignment to one company and 40% to another company, and who has to sign the terminal disclaimer (I'm not sure, but I think only the inventor. The MPEP seems to say that the assignee would only sign if they had 100% of the interest, but I could be wrong). The electric fan questions (I think the examiner maintains the rejection. I had a pretty easy one on who can sign an oath (yes, minors can sign the oath, but I forget what the right answer is now). The door handle question. I had a few questions on 103(e) dates. A means plus function question. I took about 10 weeks of hardcore studying. I'm glad that hell is over. I actually don't know what to do with the time on my hands now!


2-25-08 - I passed the exam earlier today. I looked at a lot of review material before the test, and this is the best site besides the pay courses (I also took PRG dvd) - so I feel like I should give some advice while I wait for my ride home. I had at least 20 of the questions mentioned on this site verbatim. They did not switch the answers or try any tricks. You are missing out if you don't at least go through the April 2002 - October 2003 exams. If you know them well, those questions free up time for other questions where going to the MPEP is key. I hadn't used the MPEP a whole lot with the Examware questions, but on the exam you will fail if you don't dig around in it. Previous takers had warned me about answers coming from the MPEP, and they were right. Many questions with 3 of the 4 answers were correct, and the list added an extra element not in the MPEP. Know how to search 600, 700, 1200, 1800, 2100, or at least read the t.o.c. beforehand. You will be spending time in them and others. I had lots of strange protest and restriction questions from the MPEP. You absolutely need to know the following to pass: what to do in an appeal, know the 11-29-00 PCT filing date questions, know the 102e/103 co-ownership scenario, know what to do when the inventor dies, probably 3 on this alone, reissue, re-exam, know what an asignee has to sign, know the oath/ADS battle, who can have access to what in the file - especially with partial asignees trying to block, a lot of stuff about non-citizens sending things to the US/RO - in both languages, you have to search the MPEP for the answers. Tribell was on there, Potter too, 150 degree and 300 degree argument, I had one design - 6 month priority, no plant, and one patent term from nonprov, not prov. I was dubious about a testing center with other people taking different tests in a controlled environment, but my Prometric site was great. No problems with the MPEP.



- 02/20/2008

  • I passed the exam yesterday (2/20/2008) here is a listing what I remember seeing.

Some of these are doubled up (they appear on both the April '03 and the October '03 exams).


- October '03 PM: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 25, 28, 32, 38, 40, 42, 50.

- October '03 AM: 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 22, 23, 24, 26, 34, 36, 44, 50.

- April '03 PM: 4, 13, 21, 32.

- April '03 AM: 8, 22, 29, 30, 31, 37, 44.

- April '00 AM: 5, 17, 32, 36, 42.


- The "red ink" question, though the direct quote deals with a discrepancy regarding "clear black ink" v. "clear red ink."

- The mirror question.

- A question where the inventor assigns part of the invention to the practicioner and promptly dies.

What should the practitioner do? I said get a new power of attorney.

- The "what if inventor doesn't expressly identify the best mode" question.

- The lip gloss question (I said her use as a gag was a public use and thus a bar).

- The spanish phone question.

- Question about Assignee not of record.

- New ground for rejection by the Board after appeal.

- Maintenance fee where the patent was not correctly identified.

- Indefinite question using "high"

- The divisional reissue.

- The hair gel question.


  • Examiner’s search procedures: one
  • Restriction: at least three, maybe four.
  • Oddly enough, there was nothing specifically about double patenting that I can recall.
  • Reexamination: one or two, only on ex parte.
  • Death of the inventor: at least three on this, and possibly four. And in some, the answer choices were convoluted (“executor” vs “legal representative”).
  • Protest: at least one, possibly two.
  • Interference: nothing
  • SIR: nothing
  • Access to applications: very little, maybe one, I think, about getting at the status of an application. Also there was one, which I recognized from an old exam question, about whether an applicant could be excluded from access to the application.
  • Design patents: one. I think it specifically told you that there was no patentable novelty other than the design, so you knew that the answer choice about filing a utility patent was out. Know that design patent applications must be filed within SIX MONTHS of a foreign application to which priority is claimed, and that a foreign design application filed more than SIX MONTHS before a US design application (as compared to 12 months for a Utility or Plant Application) will bar US patent for that design under 102(d).
  • 103 rejections: at least two, one about commercial success, one about experimental usage. One of the questions asked if the examiner could make an unsupported
  • 103 ( c ): one or two
  • 102(f): there was a question I recognized from the old exams, about someone who’s visiting in another country and sees a great invention, and brings it back to the US. (The old question was Mexico and an agave machine – this one was France and a grape-crusher!) --> Q) Grape Squeezing (4.00.21p)
  • Oath/ADS conflicts: one
  • New matter: very little, or nothing
  • Reply to Office actions, SSP, etc: there was at least one, and it had to do with the 2 month / 3 month thing for reply to a Final rejection and Advisory action thereto.
  • Interviews with examiners: at least one, where you had to know if an interview is a matter of right.
  • 1.131 affidavits: hardly anything, maybe nothing.
  • Request for information by the Examiner: one
  • Maintenance fees: I think one of the answer choices asked whether the patent owner had to authorize someone else to pay the maintenance fees or not; can’t recall if the entire question was about maintenance.
  • First question - long, long fact pattern, but the inventorship was filed incorrectly - there was an answer choice that said that the application would not issue as a patent until the inventorship was corrected.
  • Final Rejection - all claims rejected, except there remain dependent claims - the examiner should abandon the application.
  • i think the deal on the lip balm was that she publicly used it by kissing people at parties for over a yr. I think there may have been some other fact about the nature of the parties to indicate how public they are, with a red herring about her not telling people how the lip balm worked. I answered that it was a 102(b) bar because public use doesn't require that the claimed invention be enabled as opposed to a publication. There was also nothing to indicate that the kissing was for experimental reasons (at least not for perfecting the invention).
  • LOTS on reexam and reissue, also know citation of prior art and protest. One where a hairdresser find his competitor gets a patent but has an advertisement that he was selling the patented product one year before the competitor got his patent to that product.
  • necessary reqt's of provisional & non-provisional
  • re-exam on claim1 -4, claim 5 deals with a separator. the one that enlarges the scope deal w/ a method instead of an apparatus
  • Plenty of PCT QS w/ the US as a RO dealing w/ non-nationals who file, translations, filing dates.
  • if AA is received b4 SSP ends, you calculate your extension period from SSP
  • Pre-AIPA QS - US patent can obtain prior art date wen NSA fulfills 371(c) reqt's. Remember, for Pre-AIPA, US Patent publications do NOT have a prior art date.
  • 102(g) req't.s for ex-parte rejection.
  • Claim w/ elements ABCD. add ABCDE , then remove A leaving only BCDE: perfectly fine if supported by original disclosure
  • QS of 103 elements.
  • No patent term extension
  • No jurisdiction - invalidity/validity question
  • correspondence received by FAX, Express Mail, Cert of Mailing: know which documents can be filed with what mailing method
  • Know how to overcome all types of double patenting rejections
  • I got the 147 claims question
  • PCT: three or four. One threw in something about the Demand for Preliminary Examination, although it’s not clear to me that it was at all relevant to the question asked.
  • I think every single one had to do with a PCT app being filed before 11/29/2000! And most of them threw in facts about the PCT app claiming priority to a foreign app.
  • PCT: The examiner or applicant may, after the filing of a demand and during the time limit for reply to the written opinion, request a telephone or personal interview. Only one interview is a matter of right, whether by telephone or in person. Additional interviews may be authorized by the examiner in a particular international application where such additional interview may be helpful to advance the international preliminary examination procedure.
  • I had two PCT questions which are not mentioned here: 1)One question asked when is the last time you can amend and what can you amend(article 34 versus article 19) 2)a Signature requirement question under PCT - who can sign assignee or attorney of record (Box No. IA)
  • A variation of the PCT Box No. IX question. The fact pattern is about a PCT application having 4 applicants, inventor A, B, C, and the owner (a company) X. The power of attorney is given to a registered practitioner. The question is whether if the attorney can sign under Box No. IX. The answer I chose was that the attorney at record can sign, and a separate power of attorney is not necessary. See MPEP 1820: SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT: The international application may be signed by an agent**>. For international applications having an international filing date on or after January 1, 2004, the requirement for the submission of a separate power of attorney may be waived by the receiving Office. The United States Receiving Office will, in most cases, waive the requirement for a separate power of attorney. Not sure if it is correct though.
  • I got this question also on 11/3/06 - I don't know what the answer is because the MPEP infers that the power of atty must still be granted by at least one inventor, if the inventor speaks for the others. Tricky stuff.
  • Lots and Lots of reissue/reexamination question. Not so many PCT stuff. Several 2100 questions required look up word for word. A variation of the lip balm question regarding some kind of protective paint under a boat, any way, very similar.
  • One question have a fact pattern like if a examiner non-finally rejected an application 4 times based on the same ground and just incorporated by reference the previous rejection, which statement is proper. I chose only the first one is proper because you can not incorporate by reference a document that in turn incorporate the same material.
  • One question regarding how trade secrete and other protective material can be submitted. See 724.02. must be clearly labeled as such and be filed in a sealed, clearly labeled, envelope or container. the envelope or container, as well as each of the documents or items, must be labeled with complete identifying information for the file to which it is directed, including the Office or area to which the envelope or container is directed. The envelope or container must be accompanied by a transmittal letter which also contains the same identifying information as the envelope or container.
  • A question similar to 2003 October AM Exam's Q13 re small entity fees.
  • A question similar to 2003 October AM Exam's Q12 re assignment and access.
  • A question similar to 2003 October AM Exam's Q19 re overcoming a Section 102 rejection.
  • A question similar to 2003 October PM Exam's Q21 re what a fully responsive reply to a non-final OA rejecting the claims under Sections 102/103 is.
  • A question re common ownership and prior art exclusion.
  • A question re how an examiner can make a rejection for fraud during prosecution.
  • A question re a Section 103 rejection in which one of the two references was authored by the applicant.
  • A question re actual measurement of a prior art drawing to overcome the prior art that does not specify any size being of little value.
  • A question re what information and when the examiner can request from the applicant to find the right prior art.
  • A question re what can be faxed and what not (including a divisional application in the choices).
  • A question re from which date the extension period is counted when a reply is submitted within 2 months from the final OA and an AA is mailed within the 3 month period.
  • A question re Section 102(b): offer to sale can be a statutory bar even if the offer was rejected.
  • A question re Section 103 rejections: the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant's disclosure.
  • A few questions on protests by third parties.
  • Three PCT questions where US is the receiving office and the PCT application is filed by a non-US citizen and/or in a non-English language by those from (1) Costa Rica, (2) Sweden, or (3) Germany, respectively.
  • A question re Spanish Phone with a twist (what the effect of filing a CIP after one year from the first filing date is, or something... although I may have missed the issue here ...).
  • A question re submission of information by a third party: must not include any explanation.
  • A question re PCT applications and the 30 month deadline.
  • A question re access to a redacted copy of an application.
  • A question re examiner's official notice outside the record in a 103 rejection where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
  • A question re appeal: new ground of rejection where an applicant chooses to both (a) reopen prosecution for some claims, and (b) request rehearing for the rest, and what would the examiner and the board do? ---> I think according to the MPEP, the examiner first examines (a) only and the board later decides on (b).
  • A question re MPEP 2143.01: "There are three possible sources for a motivation to combine references: the nature of the problem to be solved, the teachings of the prior art, and the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the art." In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The question asks you to select these sources for a motivation to combine references and the choices include a wrong source, " level of skill in the art ".
  • A question re that reexaminations terminated can be revived if unavoidable or unintentional.
  • A question re the written description requirement being separate and distinct from the enablement requirement.
  • A question re filing of an RCE after filing of a notice of appeal being treated as a request to withdraw the appeal and reopen prosecution regardless of whether the RCE is proper or not.
  • A question re correction of a typo error in the inventor's name: should you submit an application data sheet or call the examiner or what?
  • A question re appeal: new ground of rejection--->reopen prosecution--->if amended and allowed to overcome both the new ground of rejection and the previously board-affirmed rejection, will the board reconsider the examiner's decision made in the reopened prosecution?
  • A question re a multiplicity rejection when there are too many claims.
  • Two questions requiring the Section 102(e) chart to figure out the 102(e) dates for applications involving PCT.
  • Some IDS questions I haven't seen before. One was related to the PTO forms used for IDS.
  • A question re correction of errors in a PCT application: (a) an "obvious" spelling mistake, (b) missing drawing supported by a priority claimed application or something, (c) missing page of the description supported by a priority claimed application or something... Can you correct any of these?
  • A question re a claim reciting compositions: if one of the compositions is disclosed by prior art, the prior art anticipates the claim.
  • A question re whether a chemical formula must be disclosed to claim a new compound, or something like that... .
  • Quite a few questions re means-plus-function claims: one was on the function-way-result test, another was on when a claim is presumed to be a means-plus-function (or step-plus-function) claim (e.g. how about means for ... ing, means which ... (without reciting a structure), step for ... ing, step of ...).
  • A question similar to the “transparent layer and adhesive layer being in continuous contact with each other ...” past exam question, with modified facts and answer choices.
  • A question re patent term of an international application (MPEP 2701).
  • A question re MPEP 2286 (Ex Parte Reexamination and Litigation Proceedings) with a twist.
  • A question re correction of inventorship where not all parties are in agreement.
  • A question re amendments to the reissue dependent claims not broadening the scope of the invention.
  • A question re the oath or declaration in a reissue application: must claim foreign priority even if the priority claim was made in the original patent.
  • A few questions re death of inventor with more twist (MPEP 409.01): one question where there are joint inventors 409.03(a).
  • A question re accessibility of assignment records (MPEP 301.01): if an assignment document contains two of more items, any one of which, if alone, would be open to public inspection, then the entire document will be open.
  • A question re a reply to a new ground of rejection by the Board: the two-month period cannot be extended and the new ground of rejection shall not be considered final for judicial review.
  • A question re new matter: 132 objection and 112 rejection.

  • Just took the exam 11/3/06 - Quite a few questions on PCT and international applications, covering priority dates (both establishing and whether you can refer back to the original foreign filing). A number of questions on reissue and reexamination - study that stuff hard a lot! I was thrown off on a question about fraud, inequitable conduct - the question asked which of the fact patterns was in agreement with MPEP policies. Two of the answers had to do with reissues, two with protests and one with reexamination - they all looked legitimate to me.
  • A question about a titanium baseball and what constitutes publication.

I think it was when the publication was finally indexed and made available to the public in the museum library

(the last date).the date of July 4th, the date when the publication was available in the catalog and on the shelf (July 4th).

I disagree; the inventor does not have control over the baseball once it is shown to the museum patrons. This is distinguished from the Moleculon Research case b/c the inventor retained control over what happened to it in that instance.

  • I had a question about a reexamination certificate that is answered in 37 CFR 1.570(d), so remember to look in the CFR.

  • 8/23/07 - I had a question regarding priority. A patent application properly claims the benefit of a prior application EXCEPT when the prior application is: design, national stage, CPA, provisional, (don't remember other).
  • Had a question regarding what sheet an assignee could sign BEFORE submitting proof it is the assignee in the application. Answer: Small Entity Status Claim (509.03)
  • Had a question on PCT file submission. Part of the spec is missing, and applicant gets an invitation to correct giving 1 month to reply. However, only two weeks remain until the 1-year-mark from the app he's claiming priority to. He must file the spec within two weeks, as no filing date is granted until he cures the error. PCT Rule 26.2; MPEP 1810
  • Fraud and inequitable conduct - when is it properly raised? Normally, only a clear admission of the applicant can be used as evidence of fraud. However, an examiner's personal knowledge of a judicial decision finding fraud on the part of the applicant in prosecuting the patent application CAN be taken as evidence of such. MPEP chapter 2000. A third party cannot raise fraud issues in a reexam, nor in a reissue (particularly since a third party cannot file a reissue).

  • 10/16/07 (took and passed, many thanks to everyone who has posted before) - I had a question on what "Rapidity with which inventions are made" can be used for, and the answer was state of the art. 2141.03 Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art.

I had many appeal, reexam, reissue questions, even more than PCT questions. The appeal questions were often when the Board states a new ground. One question was about if/when it is returned to the board. See:

The new ground of rejection raised by the Board does not reopen * prosecution except as to that subject matter to which the new rejection was applied. If the Board's decision in which the rejection under 37 CFR *>41.50(b)< was made includes an affirmance of the examiner's rejection, the basis of the affirmed rejection is not open to further prosecution. If the appellant elects to proceed before the examiner with regard to the new rejection, the Board's affirmance of the examiner's rejection will be treated as nonfinal for purposes of seeking judicial review, and no request for reconsideration of the affirmance need be filed at that time. Prosecution before the examiner of the 37 CFR *> 41.50(b)< rejection can incidentally result in overcoming the affirmed rejection even though the affirmed rejection is not open to further prosecution. Therefore, it is possible for the application to be allowed as a result of the limited prosecution before the examiner of the 37 CFR *> 41.50(b)< rejection. If the application becomes allowed, the application should not be returned to the Board. Likewise, if the application is abandoned for any reason, the application should not be returned to the Board. If the rejection under 37 CFR *> 41.50(b)< is not overcome, the applicant can file a second appeal (as discussed below). Such appeal must be limited to the 37 CFR *> 41.50(b)< rejection and may not include the affirmed rejection. If the application does not become allowed or abandoned as discussed above, once prosecution of the claims which were rejected under 37 CFR *>41.50(b)< is terminated before the examiner, the application file must be returned to the Board so that a decision making the original affirmance final can be entered. 1214.01 Procedure Following New Ground of Rejection by Board.

One question was regarding when an applicant requests rehearing and re-open prosecution.

If an appellant files an appropriate amendment or **>new evidence< (see paragraph I below) as to less than all of the claims rejected by the Board under 37 CFR *>41.50(b)<, and a request for rehearing (see paragraph II below) as to the remainder of the claims so rejected, the examiner will not consider the claims for which rehearing was requested. The request for rehearing will be considered by the Board after prosecution before the examiner with respect to the first group of claims is terminated. Argument as to any of the claims rejected by the Board which is not accompanied by an appropriate amendment or **>new evidence< as to those claims will be treated as a request for rehearing as to those claims. 1214.01 Procedure Following New Ground of Rejection by Board.

One question was regarding requesting an extension after an examiner's answer - I could not find this one.

Regarding Titanium Baseball - I went with the day the inventor turned it over to the museum. The question made it sound like the museum requested it, and the inventor handed it over without conditions/or concern.

Lastly, from what I can remember, there was a Tommie and Jo question that is on one of the old exams - I think it tangentially relates to correcting inventorship.

One question about 1 independent claim and 984(?) dependent claims that were repetitious. What should examiner do? One answer choice was whether examiner will ask applicant to resubmit claims or something like that. Another was for examiner to reject as being prolix. yet another choice was that examiner will select the 1st 20 since the fees cover that. (1/11/08)


- I just took the patent bar and passed on my first try. This website has been really helpful to me,

so I guess it is time for me to make my contribution. I went in there expecting to see no more than 5 repeats,

but it turns out that I saw around 20 or even more repeats on the exam. So make sure you know the answers

to the 02 and 03 exams!!! I did the 02 and 01 exams too. But what really helped was going through this website

and the post on interpolaw. I also spent the day before the exam going through all 200 questions in the April

and October 03 exams and memorize the questions that I was not able to find answers for.


(this one and the assignee question above are just questions that I still have no idea where to look up, but I just memorized the answers)

  • electric lamp with switches on different places, but I vaguely remember seeing John White's comment that they give credit

to answer A, which is the making the argument that the prior art does not disclose an electric power outlet or something like that

  • many appeal questions - mostly new ground in board's rejection
  • Two joint inventors jointly appoints a practitioner to file their patent application.

Then one dies, whether the practitioner needs to obtain new power of attorney from heir of the deceased inventor

  • Potter question
  • priority dates in CIP application - claims 1-10 supported by original parent application but claims 11-20 are not.

There is a prior art reference after the filing date of the parent application but before the CIP application. So the examiner can only reject claims 11-20 but not claim 1-10.

  • Mirror question
  • I had two 102(e) question as well as questions disqualifying prior art for common ownership under 103
  • Also whether you can use fax to submit CPA/RCE
  • request/requirement for information - examiner can request for information reasonably necessary for examination
  • A new question - in a reissue application, you want to 1) broaden the claims, and 2) delete an inventor.

The question is whether the inventor being deleted needs to sign the oath for reissue application. The right answer is NO.

  • Costa Rica question - the USPTO will accord an International filing date for the application and forward the application to IB.

Actually I had two questions, the other question is identical except that the applicants are all German nationals.



- 04-05-06


1. Lancer tooth brush

2. Lip Gloss Question


3. Lots of repeats from 2002 and 2003

2002 APRIL PM: 24

2002 OCT AM: 1, 2, 6, 34, 46, 49

2003 OCT AM: 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 34, 36, 38, 44, 46

2003 OCT PM: 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 15, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 37, 39, 40


4. No interference

5. Third party submission CFR 1.99


6. Appeal questions

1213.02 Read this section, answers can be found word to word in this section


7. 724 Q on Trade secret, Proprietary, protective order materials, if you read first couple sections, you can find answer

8. Assignment: "which one of the following in accordance with MPEP, except" type of question


9. Reissue - manner of filing amendment if you had a Certif Correct in the parent,

and want to file preliminary amendment, what do you do type of question


10. No patent term extension

11. No jurisdiction - invalidity/validity question

12. asked about who to contact when you are filing petition under CRF 1. 183???


13. correspondence received by FAX, Express Mail, Cert of Mailing:

know which documents can be filed with what mailing method


14. Restriction Requirement - Linking claim questions

Read that section, answers were eash look up


15. PCT - 1803 (if the US is the only contracting state in an IA, IA will not be published at 18 months) know this!

PCT filing requirement, National stage filing requirement (Translation and Oath can be filed later - know this too)


PCT specific question

French application filed, then PCT application designating US filed claiming French application

and IA was published in French (I think). At some point within 30 months, without entering National Stage,

applicant files continuation from PCT application, is the claim for French priority proper? or is it perfected?


Answer: claim for french priority proper, but not perfected.

since you filed continuation and USPTO only has the French application, you need to file translation to USPTO.

I chose that answer. There were other choices.


16. 707.05(f) Declassfied printed matter - I had 2 or 3 questions


17. I had question on submitting 52 tables in CD-ROM.

52 tables were divided into two portions; 1-26 and 27-52. Is this proper? that sort of question.

Personal tools