2100

• All Discussions
•  Isaac

  Aint no way question 3 of quiz 4 should be accepted

   Isaac replied 18 hours ago 1 Member · 0 Replies

  2100
•  Rajesh

  What is the effective filing date for a nonprovisional application filed on March 1, 2013 claiming priority to a foreign application filed on March 1, 2012?

   Rajesh replied 1 month ago 1 Member · 0 Replies

  2100
•  Rajesh

  For AIA (FITF) applications, can an applicant swear behind a reference or show prior activity to overcome a prior art reference?

   Rajesh replied 1 month, 2 weeks ago 1 Member · 0 Replies

  2100
•  Dan

  Why so many pre-AIA questions?

  Tsion replied 1 month, 2 weeks ago 2 Members · 1 Reply

  2100
•  Carville

  This is an improperly written question.

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

  2100
•  Ryan

  During his summer vacation to the mountains, Eric discovered and isolated a microorganism which secretes a novel compound. Eric purified and tested the compound in tumor-containing control mice and found that the tumors disappeared after one week; whereas tumor-containing mice which did not receive the compound died. Eric was very excited about his results and so he did a few additional experiments to characterize the microorganism and the compound which it was secreting. Eric determined that the microorganism was an S. spectaculus, and that the secreted compound was so unlike any other compound that Eric named it spectaculysem. Eric told his friend Sam about his discovery, who urged him to apply for a U.S. patent on the microorganism and the secreted product. Eric did so, but to his amazement, a primary examiner rejected all the claims to his inventions. Which of the following, if made by the examiner, would be a proper rejection in accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP?

   Ryan replied 1 year, 2 months ago 1 Member · 0 Replies

  2100
•  Alek

  35 U.S.C. 102 Question

   Alek replied 1 year, 3 months ago 1 Member · 0 Replies

  2100
•  Samuel

  Quiz 1 on 102(b)

   Samuel replied 2 years, 7 months ago 1 Member · 0 Replies

  2100
•  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 ¶ 6 to avoid an indefiniteness rejection?

   Seth replied 2 years, 8 months ago 1 Member · 0 Replies

  2100