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 »
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.
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!
A distinction can arise because application may have more than one set of amendments (i.e.,... more »
Here, the use of the singular in "a narrow species" could suggest that this rejection is only allowed... more »
MPEP 608.01(n)(III) is labeled "infringement test," but the "infringement test" is actually described in the previous section, MPEP 608.01(n)(II), third paragraph, discussing whether or not claims could be met without infringing the parent claims. In contrast, MPEP 608.01(n)(III) references infringement in its first paragraph, but then only discusses the "further limitation" requirement.
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 »
I understand that presently the "R" number is the... more »