The URLs for the http://mpep.uspto.gov site are not currently friendly and it can be difficult to determine what a link might lead you to. The link for MPEP 1200 is currently: http://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/detail/manual/MPEP/current/d0e18.xml#/manual/MPEP/DC1_FPindexR-07.2015/d0e122292.xml It would be helpful if it were something more like this: http://mpep.uspto.gov/e9r072015/MPEP/1200 The link for 35 USC 101 is currently: ...more »
the phrase "the same invention claimed" in the first sentence of 201.07 should be replaced with
--an invention disclosed--
Continuation applications are sometimes but not always for the same invention. By statue they are only required to be based on the same disclosure.
Section 1207.04 of the MPEP states that Examiners can reopen prosecution after the Applicant has filed an Appeal Brief. I do not see any basis in the patent statutes or rules for this section of the MPEP. Nor is there any justifiably reason to allow this. Examiners are allowed to place new rejections in the Examiner's Answer, which the Applicant can then choose to respond to by reopening prosecution or proceeding ...more »
This part of the MPEP does not appear to take into consideration the OG notice published March 27, 2007 which redacts the 'ten sequence rule.' Will the MPEP be amended to include the information in the OG notice? Further, the MPEP does not explicitly discuss amino acid sequence restriction in Chapter 800. It would be very helpful if the MPEP discussed restriction and how it applies specifically to amino acid sequences. ...more »
803.03 indicates, in-part: "On the other hand, should the examiner determine that the elected species is allowable, the examination of the Markush-type claim will be extended. If prior art is then found that anticipates or renders obvious the Markush-type claim with respect to a nonelected species, the Markush-type claim shall be rejected and claims to the nonelected species held withdrawn from further consideration. ...more »
Examiners often reference the decision of In re Schreiber, 1218 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) for the proposition that “claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function” because it is described this way in MPEP §2114(I). However, it appears that the Schreiber court itself never made such a statement. Rather, the court found that because the claimed invention ...more »
The time for reply in written restriction practice is now 2 months. As per December 2012 patent law treaty, http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/patent-law-treaty
Thanks to LIE, Adam Queler and Kevin Bechtel for giving me this information.