How else should the web site presentation change?

What other features should be added to the online version (search, annotation, etc)?

How else should the web site presentation change?

MPEP should follow the BlueBook

Recent Office Actions continue to provide improper caselaw citations, such as incomplete citations that are ineffective to locate the case, citations to only USPQ when the cited case is available in an official reporter (e.g., a Federal reporter), etc.

 

To the extent those improper citations are drawing from the MPEP, the MPEP's caselaw citations should carefully adhere to the BlueBook.

Submitted by (@mikehaynes)

Voting

12 votes
12 up votes
0 down votes
Active

How else should the web site presentation change?

Update MPEP's caselaw citations

All versions of the MPEP should be updated to reflect only binding and applicable treaties, statutes, rules, and caselaw, and should present a fair and appropriately balanced view of the caselaw relevant to that section's topic. Currently, several sections of the current MPEP cite caselaw that is either non-binding or inapplicable, or cite only sufficient caselaw to present a lop-sided and overly biased perspective ...more »

Submitted by (@mikehaynes)

Voting

5 votes
5 up votes
0 down votes
Active

How else should the web site presentation change?

Access to cited Board and Commissioner Decisions

Any Board Decision or Commissioner's Decision (e.g., decision on a Petition) cited in the MPEP should be publicly accessible, yet some sections of the MPEP cite publicly unavailable decisions. For example, MPEP 707.07(g) cites to Ex parte Payne, 1904 C.D. 42, 108 O.G. 1049 (Comm'r Pat. 1903), yet this case does not appear to be available via the web (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Submitted by (@mikehaynes)

Voting

5 votes
5 up votes
0 down votes
Active

How else should the web site presentation change?

Access to Director's Order and Notices

The Introduction to the MPEP explains that: "From time to time, the Director of the USPTO, formerly the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, has issued Orders and Notices relating to various specific situations that have arisen in operating the USPTO. Notices and circulars of information or instructions have also been issued by other USPTO officials under authority of the Director. Orders and Notices have served various ...more »

Submitted by (@mikehaynes)

Voting

5 votes
5 up votes
0 down votes
Active

How else should the web site presentation change?

MPEP Side Wiki

There was an early suggestion, I think by Director Kappos, that a new MPEP web version might be accompanied by a side Wiki that practitioners could contribute to. I'd like to put in my vote in favor of that idea. How often have we each come across a section stating a rule that is only partially supported by the cases it cites? Or after reading the cases, we see that the MPEP rule tells only part of the story? Examiners ...more »

Submitted by (@warrenwolfeld)

Voting

3 votes
4 up votes
1 down votes
Active

How else should the web site presentation change?

Correction to MPEP 2731

In the html, the quoted 37 CFR 1.703 needs correction to include proper version of paragraph (a)(2). Right now it is duplicative of (a)(1); should recite a "reply under ยง1.111" vs an "application was filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a)".

Submitted by (@harrison)

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

How else should the web site presentation change?

MPEP should include a Practitioner & an Examiner Editions.

MPEP should include a Practitioner & an Examiner Editions. For example: Practitioner Edition: 1. Written by/for Practitioners (Practitioner point of view). 2. Review and Approved by the USPTO 3.Written in a chronological order, i.e. chapters match the life cycle/timeline of an application, i.e. a. Chapter I: Client (i.e. things that should be considered at the moment) b. Chapter II: Invention (Important ...more »

Submitted by (@josediaz)

Voting

0 votes
3 up votes
3 down votes
Active

How else should the web site presentation change?

carriage returns accompany text copied from Insight version MPEP

When we copy text from the Insight version of MPEP, pesky carriage returns come along for the ride. Can this be addressed? Currently it requires tedious effort to delete the carriage returns from each line. if we don't delete the carriage returns, text appears as follows with funny spacing: 2.10.01 Continuation or Divisional Application Contains New Matter Relative to the Prior-Filed Application Applicant states ...more »

Submitted by (@julieburke)

Voting

-1 votes
1 up votes
2 down votes
Active

How else should the web site presentation change?

MPEP as an Aid to Practitioners

This is more of a general comment than a suggestion. I hear echoed throughout this forum on any suggestion that would change the format, style, or content of the MPEP in order to aid practitioners improve their practice the rebuttal that the MPEP is designed for examiners. In the forward of the latest version of the MPEP it says: "This Manual is published to provide U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent examiners, ...more »

Submitted by (@alan.flum)

Voting

-2 votes
3 up votes
5 down votes
Active