NAME

Question types


Start with


Question limit

of 48 available terms

Advertisement Upgrade to remove ads
Print test

5 Written questions

5 Matching questions

  1. What are the six terms that are scrutinized by the USPTO for their exact meaning relative to the invention?
  2. Can a failure to disclose the best mode in the original application be rectified by an amendment?
  3. What actions are not considered new matter?
  4. Does disclosure of less than the best mode invalidate a parent?
  5. How can one avoid a 35 USC 112, rejection?
  1. a 1) about
    2) essentially
    3) similar
    4) substantially
    5) type
    6) relatively
  2. b Disclosure of less than the best mode does not invalidate a parent as long as the inventor as the time of the application did not know of the better method or did not recognize its superiority.
  3. c 1) keep exemplary language (specific examples) and preferences out of the claim language and limit them to the specifications.
  4. d No, an amendment cannot rectify a failure to disclose
  5. e 1) Rewording
    2) Making inherent function explicit
    3) making explicit material incorporated by reference not new matter

5 Multiple choice questions

  1. The test for adequate enablement (determined by the Supreme Court) has been a question of whether a person skilled in the art would have to conduct undue experimentation to make and use the invention. Often enablement will not be met because information (that could not be discovered without undue experimentation) is missing about critical parts of an invention, how to obtain those parts, or the relationship between them.
  2. The doctrine of equivalents arises in the context of infringement action
  3. The scope of the claims must be defined clearly under section 112, 2nd paragraph. (It is not the breadth of the scope, but whether that scope is clearly defined that matters to a sections 112, 1st paragraph issue.)
  4. 1) if they are used in a limitation intended as a description of a material
    2) their use cases confusion as to the scope of the claims
  5. Claims that are inconsistent with their supporting specification or the prior art cannot be considered reasonably particular and distinct, even though the terms of the claims may seem definite. [MPEP §2173.03]

5 True/False questions

  1. Reliance on PriorityClaims are entitled to the foreign priority date of filing date of a provisional application if the foreign or provisional application supports the claims as required by § 112, paragraph 1.

          

  2. 35 USC 112, 6th paragraphA Markush group which is a way of limiting claim to the members of the group of individual elements (e.g., members "selected from the group consisting of A, B and C") is definite. [A Markush group is a way of limiting a group to a set of individual elements. A markush group is used when a genus can be defined as a group that consists of particular individuals. It's a special/alternate way of expression that selects from a group "consisting of A, B and C" (closed-ended transition phrase). This wording is used (for among other reasons) to identify elements with a common trait, and the exact language must be used.]

          

  3. Product and ProcessA Markush group which is a way of limiting claim to the members of the group of individual elements (e.g., members "selected from the group consisting of A, B and C") is definite. [A Markush group is a way of limiting a group to a set of individual elements. A markush group is used when a genus can be defined as a group that consists of particular individuals. It's a special/alternate way of expression that selects from a group "consisting of A, B and C" (closed-ended transition phrase). This wording is used (for among other reasons) to identify elements with a common trait, and the exact language must be used.]

          

  4. Changes to the Scope of the ClaimBroadening or narrowing the breadth of the claim limitations or altering a numerical range limitation after the application has been filed often results in failure to meet the written description requirement.

          

  5. No New MatterA claim should not be rejected on the ground of "aggregation. (an applicant is entitled to know whether the claims are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, or 112.

          

Create Set