Quotation from §172 says "...by section 119(e)hall not apply to designs."
I have searched sections 700, 800, and 1500 (Jan. 2018). The only places I can find an explanation of how to respond to a restriction requirement in a design application... more »
This new idea is giving the world less pollution.
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”.
The text notes that "If the international application is published in English, the Office will use the description, claims, abstract and drawings as published in the pamphlet for the U.S. national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371." This statement is perfectly clear. However, I think it would benefit from some expansion.
1. I proposed expressly adding the logical consequence: "Therefore, any... more »
- 1893.01(d) mentions that a translation in the national stage should incorporate any Rule 26 corrections or Rule 91 rectifications.
- 1893.03(e), I. references the WIPO pamphlet of the application, but does not specify the effect of any republications.... more »
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?
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 »
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 »
At multiple instances throughout MPEP 2141 thru 2145, the case "In re Lintner" is misspelled as "In re Linter".
Keller says "[o]ne cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references." 642 F.2d 413, 426. I have seen this quote interpreted to mean that any argument... more »