Forums Archive | Wysebridge Patent Bar Review

General

General open forum to the entire community.

5 months, 3 weeks ago
Practice Questions & Categories

Discuss the patent bar review test and practice questions. PRO members only.

100 1200 1400 1500 1700 1800 200 2100 2200 2600 2800 300 500 600

1 month, 1 week ago
Wysebridge PRO Group

General chat about the exam and more. PRO members only.

7 months, 2 weeks ago

Viewing 1 - 3 of 3 forums

All Discussions
Seth

In the matter of described in re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942 (Fed. Cir. 1997) U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 07/543,600 application (the ‘600 application), now U.S. Patent 5,885,215 (the 215 patent)The claimed subject matter is drawn to a method of reconstructing the spatial current distribution in a biological object, i.e. the generation of medical images of a patient. The relevant claim language of independent issued claim 1 (Claim 8 on appeal) is as follows:. . . and means for reconstructing the current distributions of the volume elements which are situated on said surfaces on the basis of said measured values.The written description of the specification supports this means-plus-function recitation with the following disclosure:A reconstruction unit 11 reconstructs the density of the impressed current at the individual voxels Vi (1 . . . i . . . s, where s is the number of voxels on the marked surface) from the measuring values of the magnetic flux density at the various pixels at each time the same instant. Known algorithms can be used for this purpose. ˜215 patent, col. 4, ll. 5-11.Issue: Does the disclosure of specific equations to perform the function of reconstruction coupled with the disclosure that known algorithms can be used to solve those equations satisfy the corresponding structure, material or acts requirement of 112 Â¶ 6 to avoid an indefiniteness rejection?

Seth replied 1 month, 1 week ago 1 Member · 0 Replies

2100
Ivy

Xavier residing in Canada, a NAFTA country, files an application for a Canadian patent Monday, September 18, 2000. At the same time, Xavier forwards a copy of the Canadian application to registered practitioner Young in the United States, asking that Young prepare a U.S. application based on the Canadian application and claim the benefit of the Canadian filing. Young advises Xavier on the relative merits of filing a provisional versus a non-provisional application and Xavier decides to have Young initially file a provisional U.S. application. Young prepares the application and files it as a provisional application on Friday, January 19, 2001, claiming the benefit of the Canadian application. In August 2001, Young reminds Xavier that the filing was only provisional and that Xavier must decide whether to file a non-provisional application. In early January 2002, Xavier directs Young to get a non-provisional application, with a certified copy of the English language Canadian application, into the Office, which Young does on Friday January 11, 2002. Young files no other correspondence prior to the first Office action. Which of the following is true?

Ivy replied 2 months, 2 weeks ago 2 Members · 2 Replies

200
Unknown Member

When is restriction proper?

Unknown Member replied 4 months, 1 week ago 1 Member · 0 Replies

800
Unknown Member

Which of the following, if any, is true?

Unknown Member replied 4 months, 2 weeks ago 1 Member · 0 Replies

300
Richard

Which of the following definitions does NOT follow proper USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP relating to drawings in patent applications?

Unknown Member replied 4 months, 2 weeks ago 2 Members · 1 Reply

1500
Chy

discussion about 102a

Chy replied 5 months, 3 weeks ago 1 Member · 0 Replies

General
Richard

Inventor John receives notice that a PGR was instituted involving his patent and several claims contained in his patent. During the process of review, John decides he wants to amend the claims. Which, if any, is in accordance with the MPEP?

Richard replied 6 months, 2 weeks ago 1 Member · 0 Replies

Post Grant Review
Roman

A non-final Office action dated Friday, November 8, 2012 set a three month shortened statutory period for reply. The practitioner petitioned for a one-month extension of time on Monday, February 10, 2013 and paid the appropriate one-month extension fee. An amendment responsive to the Office action was filed on Tuesday, March 11, 2013. Each independent claim in the application was revised and two dependent claims were cancelled. No claim was added by the amendment. In the Remarks portion of the amendment, the practitioner express his belief that no fees are required by the amendment, but nevertheless authorized charging any necessary fees to the practitioners deposit account, including fees for any required extension of time. A duplicate copy of the amendment was filed. No fees were submitted with the amendment. Assuming a valid deposit account, which of the following statements is in accord with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?

Roman replied 6 months, 2 weeks ago 1 Member · 0 Replies

700
R

Any one recently passed exam?

Chy replied 7 months, 2 weeks ago 3 Members · 2 Replies

Wysebridge PRO Group
R

Any recent takers of the exam?

Jeremy replied 10 months, 3 weeks ago 2 Members · 1 Reply

Wysebridge PRO Group
R

Window for exam is 210 days

R replied 1 year, 4 months ago 2 Members · 2 Replies

Wysebridge PRO Group
R

Has anyone submitted the application for the exam to OED recently?

R replied 1 year, 5 months ago 1 Member · 0 Replies

General
R

Chapter 25 Detailed summary is empty

R replied 1 year, 7 months ago 1 Member · 0 Replies

Wysebridge PRO Group
rlburton

Lost access to PRO???

elizabeth.kukla replied 1 year, 10 months ago 2 Members · 1 Reply

Wysebridge PRO Group

Viewing 1 - 14 of 14 discussions

General

Practice Questions & Categories

Wysebridge PRO Group

All Discussions