Talk:Load Dump Area
From Patentbarquestions
August, 2007 exam questions that repeat from previous exams:
10/15/2003 AM: 50, 44, 38, 36, 23, 24, 16, 19, Question similar to 20 (app. was filed with 5 figures, postcard from USPTO said 5, but still got notice figure 5 was not in app. as filed), 7, Question similar to 8 (think it was 102 generally)
10/15/2003 PM: question similar to 40 (similar facts, German application), 38, several similar to 39 (the same question twice, once with Swedish nationals and once with Costa Ricans, asking if they would get filing date if file with USPTO), 28 (the question on detecting expiring parking meters), 29, 30, 32, 24, 18, 4, 6
4/15/2003 AM: 2, 41, 42, 47
4/17/2002 AM: 50
10/16/2002 PM: 29
4/12/2000 AM: 23
Other questions: Museum Titanium baseball question in which company makes baseball with titanium core, padding and a cover. They then produce a printed publication describing how to make the baseball and results of their tests on baseball. They then call museum, which places publication in libery where only "wealthy museum patrons who have no intrest or skill to make baseballs" see it (museum is open to public but library is not). Then museum decides to open library to public (June 22?). Musuem announces it will open libary to public (June 30). Library is opened to public (July 1). Then libary is indexed and cataloged (July 5?). Question is when the publication is available as prior art. Answers are June 22, June 30, July 1, July 5, some date 1 year after everything else in fact pattern occured.
Mirror question had variations on how you could amend an application. ONe was whether you could change mirror to "light reflecting surface", another involved inserting dictionary defition of mirror into specification, one was "parallel" and "perpendicular" describing same mirror, states this is error and can correct as a error obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Tribell question was same as from Oct. 2003 (question 16) exam.
Question on amending abstract for PCT (variations on time required, if it can be done and how to do it for answers).
Two prior art questions for PCT application--one published in English, the other in German, question for both was what 102(e) date was for them.
Question on whether you could fax part of an international app. for patent under PCT and get filing date based on fax (may have been combined with other methods for getting a filing date like certificate of mailing, express mail, or wait for USPTO to send you notice of deficiency (facts stated you got postcard back indicating part of your app. was not recieved, question was how to get file date as soon as possible).
Question on how the USPTO handles trade secret materials (answers involved various ways of preventing trade secret materials from being opened to public and when they could/could not be expunged from file. One answer (correct?) was that trade secret materials become part of the file and can't be expunged when examiner relies on them as material to patentablility.
Best Mode question in which designation as best mode is not required (lots of alternative statements about the best mode, you have to choose which one is correct).
Question on requesting information from USPTO on whether app. was published and pub. date. Answers were (a) can't get information, (b) can go in person and wait while staff checks and gives you information if it is published, Company A goes in person, gives agent B's info and USPTO either writes (c)or calls (d) Agent B and some other answer I can't remember.
Question on Velcro: same as listed, but answer D had multiple parts which involved (1) object to use of trademark in claim; (2) require applicant to amend specification to disclose physical structure of Velcro; (3) amend claim to recite this limitation.
Several questions on what happens and how to proceed after the Board gives a new ground of rejection.
Small entity status/documents assignee of record can sign was same question on my exam. Question was what assignee not of record can do. Answers were appoint attorney/agent to prosecute, file for reissue of patent, prosecute patent app., sign small entity statement, sign some other document.
Question about claiming benefit of German app. in issued patent when not originally claimed. One answer was file reissue with petion, fee, german app., translation. Another answer was same, but you did not file translation of german patent. Some of the other answers involved requests for rexamination.
Question on what happens when inventor gives attorney partial assignment of patent app. in exchange for prosecuting app., then dies. Answers included (a) power of attorney terminates, (b) nothing, (c) dead inventor's wife must sign for him unless legal rep. intervenes, (d) legal rep. prosecutes, or (e) assignee/agent prosecutes unless leg. rep. intervenes, in which case legal rep. must also sign papers.
Maintenance fee question. Answers (a) app. not IDed at all, pet. under 1.377 (b) pet. under 1.377 when main. fee paid after patent expires, (c) pet. under 1.377 within three months, (d) pet. under 1.377 within 1 month, main. fee paid before patent expires, (e) pet. under 1.378
Hairgel question tests whether you realize inter partes reexamination is not available for app. filed 11/20/1999, so only correct option is ex parte reexamination based on printed ad. Answers are similar to football pad question. Facts are something like Buzzcut files for patent Nov. 20, 1999, issued in 2001. Then competitor Razorcut gets upset (can't remember if Buzzcut was claiming infringement) since he had same hairgel, found highly detailed printed ad (how to make and use hairgel) from April? 1998 and wants to know what to do.
Question with contested inventorship. Jim and Rake have some connection. Rake goes to registered patent agent and files patent app. naming both as joint inventors. Jim is unwilling to cooperate with him because Jim claims he is sole inventor, so Rake files under 37 CFR 1.47 for Jim. Jim goes to you and asks how to correct inventorship. Options (a) file patent which is identical and names only Jim as inventor to provoke interferance, (b) wait for patent to issue, then file a protest over inventorship, (c) wait for patent to issue and file Certicate of Correction, (d) amend Rake's app. to correct inventorship with statement that error occured without deceptive intent (on Rake's part?), (e) can't remember
There were a lot of questions on double patenting and restriction requirements. There was one on when USPTO will reject app. based on fraud/ineuitable conduct. Answers involved fraud claim file by third party (in protest and in ongoing litigation involving patent app.); found by court to have occured during prosecution, then applicant files reissue with statement that errors in original prosecution occured without deceptive intent--answer was in chap. 2000-Duty of Disclosure.
[edit] 1/15/08 exam
I just passed the computerized exam on 1/15/08. The night before, I went over the questions from the 10/03 exam--there were about 10-12 questions from that exam in the morning session alone, so I was feeling pretty confident. HOWEVER, in the afternoon, I seem to remember that about 30 questions were on PCT, Appeals and Re-exams. So...even though we're told to focus on 700 and 2100, make sure you're pretty familiar with these other three sections as well. Good luck!
[edit] 2/3/08 exam
I just passed at prometric on 2/3/08. I found the same pattern as did the previous (1/15) poster.
[edit] Help! I'm preparing for the exam and I cannot find the references in the MPEP to question #23 April 13 2003 PM
Question 23 (April 13 2003 PM): The claims in a patent application having been twice or finally rejected, the applicant timely files a Notice of Appeal on Jan 23, 2003. In accordance with the USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the Mpep, which of the following situations should the USPTO NOT notify the applicant that the Appeal Brief is defective and allow him an opportunity to correct the deficiency?
A. The Appeal Brief is filed on July 10, 2003, without a request for extension of time under 1.136 B.The Appeal Brief is submitted unsigned C. (Correct answer) The Appeal Brief states that the claims do not stand or fall together, and presents argument as to why the claims are separately patentable, but the primary examiner does not agree with the applicant's argument D. The Appeal Brief does not state whether the claims do not stand or fall together, but presents arguments why the claims subject to the same rejection are separately patentable E. The Appeal brief does not address one of the grounds of rejection stated by the primary examiner
The explanation to the response refers to form 12.69.01 in the Mpep and 37 CFR 1.192(c) amongst other references and a discussion, all of which I can't find either. Where is form 12.69.01 in the Mpep? And 37 CFR 1.192(c) says reserved - there is no explanation. Is this a mistake that they made? Why are these references inconsistent with my MPEP?
