A decision was rendered in 1954 pertaining to indicia. In re Montgomery states: Patentable novelty cannot be principally predicated on mere printed matter and arrangements thereof, but must reside basically in physical structure. In re Montgomery, 102 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1954). Although this decision is old, it is pertinent in today's world, whether in displays where an application is trying to patent the word "caution" over... more »
MISCELLANEOUS - Appendices and Other
The URLs for the http://mpep.uspto.gov site are not currently friendly and it can be difficult to determine what a link might lead you to. 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 »
In the PDF files, Subject Matter Index, Nov. 2015 (mpep-9090-subject-matter-index.pdf), the Bookmarks do not include the expandable "MPEP TOC" to provide direct access to other MPEP sections. Would you please add them? Thanks!
PPH (708.02(c), Nov. 2015) isn't mentioned by name in the Subject Matter Index. Would you please add it, and relevant other terms? For example, "highway" also isn't in the index. Thanks!
Alternatively, amend appendix II to include the text of all of the cited court cases.
The eligibility pages at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility and https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility-examination-guidance-date are very helpful. However, as the number of documents grows, the tedium of citing them weighs more and more heavily. Would the editors please consider including a regularly-updated... more »
The headers at the top of each page of the MPEP PDF give the section number. As far as I can tell, it's the last section number on that page. For example, p. 2100-141 (Nov. 2015) ends with half a sentence of 2142, so the header reads "2142." However, the vast majority of text on that page is 2141.03. Would it be possible to clarify which text is part of which section in some way? At present, I regularly wind up reading... more »
The patent list page on Private PAIR can not show most updated date of document from USPTO for a particulary application, and misslead user think there is not new document or notice from USPTO. Even worse I just received same notice letter which has gone thru over two month to reach me and overdue. To improve the system, it is ideally to set the system automatically send an email to remind the account holder to check... more »
R-07.2015 has a 10/2015 publication and an 11/2015 publication. The two publications differ in substance, not merely in form. For ease and clarity of citation, I suggest the revision number match the publication date in the future. Alternatively, I suggest the MPEP be referred to primarily by a publication date (e.g., "E9 P-11.2015") rather than a revision number. I understand that presently the "R" number is the... more »
The zip file containing the March 2014 version of the 9th edition of the MPEP still uses the name of the previous version, ie. e9r-11-2013.zip.
It would be less confusing if the name was consistent with the current version.
In the Introduction to the MPEP (or whatever prefatory section is preferred), add a short section on which terms are requirements and which describe best practice. Those without legal training sometimes interpret the term "should" similarly to the term "must." This seems to lead to confusion and complaints from those MPEP readers that the MPEP is "confusing" or "self-contradictory." Although some readers of the MPEP... more »
Introduction (Nov. 2015), p. 1, right column, bottom, reads, in part: "The primary function of the rules is to advise the public of the rules which ... must be followed before the USPTO". Would you please rewrite the beginning part of that sentence for clarity? It seems to me a bit redundant. Suggestion: "The rules govern conduct of examiners, applicants, and patent practitioners before the Office. The rules are available... more »
Thanks very much for the 01-2018 publication! I am looking forward to enjoying the changes as I work with it. Would you be willing to provide a PDX index file to the downloadable PDF version, or point me to where it is? I can't find it on the MPEP page or in e9r-08-2017.zip. The 11-2015 publication included the "E9R-07.2015.pdx" index file, and I have made good use of that over the last two years. (The 11-2015 publication... more »
MPEP paragraphs often contain explanatory links to other short sections, laws, rules, etc. They would be easier to comprehend if the links were displayed as popups so the reader wouldn't have to jump back and forth in the manual. I've never seen popup footnotes or links in pdf myself, but I've seen references to such in a brief search, so I guess it's possible: https://accessible-digital-documents.com/blog/accessible-pdf-footnotes-endnotes/... more »
1. App. L (Jan. 2018) at L-29, left column, in 35 USC 119(a): comma placement:
, pursuant to which..."
pursuant to which..."
2. Id. at L-30, right column, 35 USC 120: spacing:
"...or as provided by section 363 or 385which"
"...or as provided by section 363 or 385 which"
(with space after "385")