MISCELLANEOUS - Appendices and Other

Implement Friendly URLs on mpep.uspto.gov

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 »

Submitted by

Voting

3 up votes
0 down votes

200 Types, Cross-Noting, and Status of Application

Error in 201.07 "same invention"

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.

Submitted by

Voting

1 up votes
0 down votes

1200 Appeal

Basis for 1207.04?

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 »

Submitted by

Voting

2 up votes
0 down votes

800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting

MPEP 803.04 Nucleotide Sequences

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 »

Submitted by

Voting

0 up votes
0 down votes

800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting

803.02 Markush Claims

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 »

Submitted by

Voting

0 up votes
0 down votes

2100 Patentability

Inaccurate paraphrase of In re Schreiber - MPEP 2114(I)

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 »

Submitted by

Voting

5 up votes
3 down votes

Displaying 1 - 7 of 35 Ideas