MPEP Sec. 602.01(c)(1) cites the wrong version of CFR 1.48. Specifically, it cites the pre-aia version and not the latest version.
Could the sentence saying that serious burden on the examiner be corrected back to what it said in the previous version (there is clearly said it's inapplicable). Now the language where this is first discussed appeared to be missing something
Preparing EPS submission, i notice most of the forms are expired, that is, beyond their 'use by' dates. Where are up-to-date forms located?
Immediately following the Title of section 602.01(c)(1) in the Editor Note, it seems that "applications" must be changed to --requests--.
Section 809.02(a) seems to have been left behind in the current version. If this was deliberate, an entry should be included in the Blue Pages.
When a compound or composition claim is limited by a particular use, enablement of that claim should be evaluated based on that limitation.
See In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (claiming a chimeric gene capable of being expressed in any
cyanobacterium and thus defining the claimed gene by its use).
Quite respectfully, is it 'defining the claimed gene by... more »
The downloadable PDF version of Chapter 1200 includes a typo in section 1202:
decisions mailed prior to September 16, 2102 should continue to be cited as decisions of the BPAI or its predecessor organizations
Presumably, 2102 should read 2012.
"Two or more claimed subcombinations, disclosed as usable together in a single combination, and which can be shown to be separately usable, are usually restrictable when the subcombinations do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants. To support a restriction requirement where applicant separately claims plural subcombinations usable together in a single combination and claims a combination... more »
As far as I understand, right now no claim is required to establish a filing date. But search around "at least one claim" on chapter 600, you still get a few such old descriptions.
This title is misleading because the rejection can also be overcome by rebutting the Examiner's evidence or logic for inherency. See Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d... more »