1400 Correction of Patents

MPEP 1451, 9th, Bullet 3 (Amendments per 1.173)

The item below refers to claim markings in a reissue application. MPEP 1451 includes a typo in the section reading "Indicia that a continuation reissue application is being filed are . . .".

In bullet 3, strike "1.175" and replace with 1.173:

 

3. Amendments in proper format per 37 CFR --1.173--

Submitted by (@tsexton)
1 comment

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

1700 Miscellaneous

§103 - problem-and-solution

Should §103 of the MPEP be completed with a lead-in section recommending examiners and applicants to frame their analysis on obviousness using the “problem-and-solution approach”?

See the article in ipWatchdog “Could or should the USPTO adopt the EPO problem-and-solution approach for assessing obviousness”.

Submitted by (@brianhjcronin)
4 comments

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

400 Representative of Applicant or Owner

402.10: "less" should be "fewer"

Wow - first idea in this chapter!

 

Anyway, 402.10 (Nov. 2015) (p. 400-19, right column), first paragraph, says "Papers revoking ... will not be accepted ... when signed by less than all". I believe that should read "by fewer than all." Similarly, the title should "fewer" instead of "less." Thanks!

Submitted by (@chrisw)
2 comments

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
Active

2000 Duty of Disclosure

Citing in IDS theatrical films/movies like "Back to the Future"?

Can theatrical films or movies like "Back to the Future" be cited as art in an IDS? I am familiar with citing Youtube videos. Would it be necessary to paper file the IDS and include a DVD of the movie?

Submitted by (@patentleathershoes)
1 comment

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

200 Types, Cross-Noting, and Status of Application

Correct reference in MPEP 201.07

At the end of the first paragraph of MPEP § 201.07, it says "For more information on claiming the benefit of a prior nonprovisional application, see MPEP § 201.11." There is no MPEP § 201.11 This reference likely should be to MPEP § 211.01(b), which discusses claiming the benefit of a nonprovisional application.

Submitted by (@norrisboothe)
Add your comment

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

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 (@dratoff1)
2 comments

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

1500 Design Patents

1504.05 typo

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

Submitted by (@thomas.mcbride)
1 comment

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

1500 Design Patents

non-analogous or nonanalogous?

There is one place in the MPEP that uses the term "non-analogous" -- MPEP 1504.03.

 

Every other place in the MPEP uses "nonanalogous."

 

In the interest of consistency...perhaps the usage in MPEP 1504.03 should be updated.

Submitted by (@steve0)
1 comment

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

1500 Design Patents

MPEP 1504.10 typo - missing "s" in "shall"

Quotation from §172 says "...by section 119(e)hall not apply to designs."

Submitted by (@steve0)
1 comment

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

1200 Appeal

Typo: 1202

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.

Submitted by (@rellinger)
1 comment

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

1200 Appeal

MPEP 1204.04 should better define Record On Appeal

MPEP 1204.04 points out that other than dictionary definitions, the Record of evidence upon which an appeal brief can rely includes only "the items listed in the content listing of the Image File Wrapper of the official file of the application ..., excluding amendments, Evidence, and other documents that were not entered." This definition is unclear because the IFW does not state which documents have been "entered". ...more »

Submitted by (@warrenwolfeld)
Add your comment

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

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 (@cwright)
3 comments

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
Active