800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting
Impermissible shift - which claims are used for comparison?
A distinction can arise because application may have more than one set of amendments (i.e.,... more »
800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting
800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting
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.
800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting
800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting
The time for reply in written restriction practice is now 2 months. As per December 2012 patent law treaty, http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/patent-law-treaty
Thanks to LIE, Adam Queler and Kevin Bechtel for giving me this information.
800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting
800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting
800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting
"Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1984)" should say "Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894)". The year is wrong.