Discussions – Page 2 – Wysebridge Patent Bar Academy

All Discussions
Samuel

Quiz 1 on 102(b)

Samuel replied 2 years, 2 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 Â¶ 6 to avoid an indefiniteness rejection?

Seth replied 2 years, 3 months 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 years, 4 months ago 2 Members · 2 Replies

200
Unknown Member

Which of the following, if any, is true?

Unknown Member replied 2 years, 6 months 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 2 years, 7 months ago 2 Members · 1 Reply

1500
Chy

discussion about 102a

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

700
R

Any one recently passed exam?

Chy replied 2 years, 9 months ago 3 Members · 2 Replies

Wysebridge PRO Group
R

Any recent takers of the exam?

Jeremy replied 3 years, 1 month ago 2 Members · 1 Reply

Wysebridge PRO Group
R

Window for exam is 210 days

R replied 3 years, 7 months ago 2 Members · 2 Replies

Wysebridge PRO Group
R

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

R replied 3 years, 8 months ago 1 Member · 0 Replies

General
R

Chapter 25 Detailed summary is empty

R replied 3 years, 9 months ago 1 Member · 0 Replies

Wysebridge PRO Group
rlburton

Lost access to PRO???

elizabeth.kukla replied 4 years ago 2 Members · 1 Reply

Wysebridge PRO Group

Viewing 16 - 29 of 29 discussions