USPTO April 2003am (untimed)

In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following statements is most correct?

The same evidence sufficient to establish a constructive reduction to practice is necessarily also sufficient to establish actual reduction to practice.
Proof of constructive reduction to practice does not require sufficient disclosure to satisfy the "how to use" and "how to make" requirements of 35 USC 112, first paragraph.
A process is reduced to actual practice when it is successfully performed.
The diligence of 35 USC 102(g) requires an inventor to drop all other work and concentrate on the particular invention.
The diligence of 35 USC 102(g) does not impose on a registered practitioner any need for diligence in preparing and filing a patent application inasmuch as such the practitioners acts do not inure to the benefit of the inventor.

A registered practitioner filed in the USPTO a clients utility patent application on December 30, 2002. The application was filed with a request for nonpublication, certifying that the invention disclosed in the U.S. application has not and will not be the subject of an application in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires eighteen month publication. Subsequently, the client files an application in Japan on the invention and some recent improvements to the invention. The improvements are not disclosed or supported in the utility application. Japan is a country that requires eighteen month publication. Two months after filing the application in Japan, and before filing any other papers in the USPTO, the client remembers that a nonpublication request was filed and informs the practitioner about the application that was filed in Japan. Which of the following courses of action is in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?

The application is abandoned because the practitioner did not rescind the nonpublication request and provide notice of foreign filing within 45 days of having filed the application in Japan. The applicant must now file a petition and fee to revive under 37 CFR 1.137(b).
The application is abandoned because the applicant did not rescind the nonpublication request before filing the application in Japan. The applicant must now file a petition and fee to revive under 37 CFR 1.137(b).
The applicant should file an amendment to the specification of the U.S. application, adding the recent improvements to the disclosure in the specification
The application is abandoned because the applicant did not rescind the nonpublication request by notifying the Office under 37 CFR 1.213(c) within the appropriate time. The applicant must now file a petition and fee to revive under 37 CFR 1.137(b).
The applicant could today notify the USPTO of the foreign filing. It is not necessary to file a petition and fee to revive for the application to continue to be examined in the USPTO.

According to the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, in which of the following situations would the finality of an Office Action rejection be improper?

I. The final Office Action rejection is in a first Office action in a substitute application that contains material which was presented in the earlier application after final rejection but was denied entry because the issue of new matter was raised.

II. The final Office Action rejection is in a first Office action in a continuing application, all claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the earlier application, and the claims would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application.

III. The final Office Action rejection is in a first Office action in a continuation-in-part application where at least one claim includes subject matter not present in the earlier application.

I
II
III
I and III
II and III

In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following is true?

Interferences will generally be declared even when the applications involved are owned by the same assignee since only one patent may issue for any given invention.
A senior party in an interference is necessarily the party who obtains the earliest actual filing date in the USPTO.
Reexamination proceedings may not be merged with reissue applications since third parties are not permitted in reissue applications.
After a reexamination proceeding is terminated and the certificate has issued, any member of the public may obtain a copy of the certificate by ordering a copy of the patent.
None of the above.

Following a restriction requirement and election, a registered practitioner received a first Office action dated Friday, December 1, 2000. The primary examiner indicated that claims 1 to 10 were rejected and claims 11 to 20 were withdrawn from consideration. The first Office action set a 3 month shortened statutory period for reply. On February 28, 2001, the practitioner properly filed an express abandonment in the application and at the same time filed a request for continuing application. In a non-final Office action dated May 1, 2001 in the continuing application, the examiner indicated in that claims 1 to 20, all of the pending claims, are rejected. The practitioner filed a notice of appeal on Monday, July 2, 2001. In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following most accurately describes the propriety of the practitioners reply to the May 1st Office action?

The notice of appeal is not a proper response because the claims of the continuing application have not been finally rejected.
The notice of appeal is not a proper reply because all of the claims in the continuing application have not been twice rejected.
The filing of a notice of appeal is not a proper reply because not all the claims in the continuing application have been twice rejected.
A notice of appeal is never a proper response to a non-final rejection.
The reply is proper.

Which of the following is not in accordance with the provisions of the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?

Where joint inventors are named, the examiner should not inquire of the patent applicant concerning the inventors and the invention dates for the subject matter of the various claims until it becomes necessary to do so in order to properly examine the application.
Under 35 USC 119(a), the foreign priority benefit may be claimed to any foreign application that names a U.S. inventor as long as the U.S. named inventor was the inventor of the foreign application invention and 35 USC 119(a)-(d) requirements are met.
Where two or more foreign applications are combined in a single U.S. application, to take advantage of the changes to 35 USC 103 or 35 USC 116, the U.S. application may claim benefit under 35 USC 119(a) to each of the foreign applications provided all the requirements of 35 USC 119(a)-(d) are met.
One of the conditions for benefit under 35 USC 119(a) is that the foreign application must be for the same or a nonobvious improvement of the invention described in the United States application.
If a foreign application for which priority is being claimed under 35 USC 119 is filed in a country which does not afford similar privileges in the case of applications filed in the United States or to citizens of the United States and the foreign country is not a WTO member country, any claim for the foreign priority thereto by a U.S. application will not be effective.

A registered practitioner filed a patent application naming Sam as the sole inventor without an executed declaration under 37 CFR 1.63. The USPTO mailed a Notice to File Missing Parts dated January 3, 2000. The Notice to File Missing Parts set a two-month period for reply. Which of the following statements is in accordance with proper USPTO rules and the procedure set forth in the MPEP? I. Submit an appropriate reply to the Notice to File Missing Parts by filing, on August 3,2000, a declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 executed by Sam, accompanied by a petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a) for an extension of five months, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR1.17(a). II. In no situation can any extension requested by the practitioner carry the date on which a reply is due to the Notice to File Missing Parts beyond Monday, July 3, 2000. III. An appropriate reply by the practitioner to the Notice to File Missing Parts is to file, on August 3, 2000 a declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 executed by Sam, accompanied by a petition under 37 CFR 1.136(b).

I
II
III
I and III
None of the above

With the exception that under 37 CFR 1.53 an application for patent may be assigned a filing date without payment of the basic filing fee, USPTO fees and charges payable to the USPTO requesting any action by the Office for which a fee or charge is payable, are required to be paid, in accordance with the MPEP and USPTO rules and procedure:

in advance, that is, at the time of requesting any action.
upon written notice from the USPTO.
within 20 days of requesting any action.
by the end of the fiscal year.
there are no fees.

In which of the following final Office action rejections is the finality of the Office action rejection in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?

The final Office action rejection is in a second Office action and uses newly cited art under 35 USC 102(b) to reject unamended claims that were objected to but not rejected in a first Office action.
The final Office action rejection is in a first Office action in a continuation-in-part application where at least one claim includes subject matter not present in the parent application.
The final Office action rejection is in a first Office action in a continuing application, all claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the parent application, and the claims would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the parent application.
The final Office action rejection is in a first Office action in a substitute application that contains material that was presented after final rejection in an earlier application but was denied entry because the issue of new matter was raised.
None of the above.

Which of the following is true?

There is no practical difference between an objection and rejection of a claim.
If the form of the claim (as distinguished from its substance) is improper, an objection is made
An objection, if maintained by an examiner, is subject to review by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
An example of a proper objection is where the claims are refused because they fail to comply with the second paragraph of 35 USC 112.
An example of a proper rejection is a rejection of a dependent claim for being dependent on a claim that has been rejected only over prior art, where the dependent claim is otherwise allowable.

Assuming that any rejection has been properly made final, which of the following statements is not in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?

An objection and requirement to delete new matter from the specification is subject to supervisory review by petition under 37 CFR 1.181.
A rejection of claims for lack of support by the specification (new matter) is reviewable by appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
If both the claims and the specification contain the same new matter, and there has been both a rejection and objection by the primary examiner, the new matter issue should be decided by petition, and is not appealable.
If both the claims and the specification contain the same new matter, and there has been both a rejection and objection by the examiner, the new matter issue is appealable, and should not be decided by petition.
None of the above

On January 2, 2001, a registered practitioner filed a patent application with the USPTO for inventor Beck. The application includes a specification and a single claim to the invention which reads as follows:1. Mixture Y made by the process Q1. In the specification, Mr. Beck discloses that mixture Y has a melting point of 150Â° F. On June 2,2001, the practitioner received an Office action from the primary examiner rejecting the claim. The claim is rejected under 35 USC 102/103 as being clearly anticipated by or obvious over Patent A. The examiner states “Patent A teaches mixture Y but made by a different process Q2.” Beck believes he is entitled to a patent to mixture Y. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following would be the best reply to the rejection of his claim?

An argument that the claimed product has an unexpectedly low melting point of 150Â° F, supported by an affidavit showing that the mixture Y made by process Q2 exhibits a melting point of 300Â° F.
An argument that the processes used by applicant and patent A are different, supported by a third-party declaration stating only that the processes are different.
An argument that the claimed product has an unexpectedly low melting point of150Â° F, supported by a third-party declaration stating only that the products are different.
An argument that the processes used by applicant and patent A are different, supported by an affidavit showing that the mixture Y made by process Q2 exhibits a melting point of 300Â° F.
An argument that the claimed product has an unexpectedly low melting point of150Â° F because the claimed mixture Y has a melting point of 150Â° F and the mixture Y of patent A has a melting point of 300Â° F.

Which of the following is not prohibited conduct for a practitioner under the USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility?

Entering into an agreement with the client to limit the amount of any damages which the client may collect for any mistakes the practitioner may make during prosecution of the clients patent application in exchange for prosecuting the application at a reduced fee.
The practitioner shall not give legal advice to an unrepresented person, other than the advice to secure counsel, if the practitioner knows or reasonably should know that the interests of such a person are or have a reasonable possibility of being in conflict with the interests of the client.
Failing to disclose controlling legal authority which is adverse to thepractitioners clients interest when arguing the patentability of claims in a patent application.
In reply to an Office action, stating honestly and truthfully in the remarks accompanying an amendment that the practitioner has personally used the device and found it to be very efficient and better than the prior art.
None of the above.

Sam is a sole proprietor of Sams Labs, which has no other employees. Sam invented a new drug while doing research under a Government contract. Sam desires to file a patent application for his invention and assign it to Sams Labs. Sam has licensed Rick, also a sole proprietor with no employees, to make and use his invention. Sam wants to claim small entity status when filing a patent application for his invention. Sam also wants to grant the Government a license, but will not do so if he will be denied small entity status. Sam has limited resources and wants to know whether, how, and to what extent he may claim small entity status. Which of the following is not in accord with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP in relation to applications filed on or after January 1, 2001?

Sams Labs is a small business concern for the purposes of claiming small entity status for fee reduction purposes.
If Sam grants a license to the Government resulting from a rights determination under Executive Order 10096, it will not constitute a license so as to prohibit claiming small entity status.
The establishment of small entity status permits the recipient to pay reduced fees for all patent application processing fees charged by the USPTO.
Sam may establish small entity status by a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status. A written assertion must: (i) be clearly identifiable; (ii) be signed; and (iii) convey the concept of entitlement to small entity status, such as by stating that applicant is a small entity, or that small entity status is entitled to be asserted for the application or patent.
While no specific words or wording are required to assert small entity status, the intent to assert small entity status must be clearly indicated in order to comply with the assertion requirement.

In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following is not a proper basis on which the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences may remand a case to the examiner?

Remand for a fuller description of the claimed invention.
Remand for a clearer explanation of the pertinence of the references.
Remand for a selection by the primary examiner of a preferred or best ground of rejection when multiple rejections of a cumulative nature have been made by the examiner.
Remand to the primary examiner with instructions to consider an affidavit not entered by the examiner which was filed after the final rejection but before the appeal.
Remand to the primary examiner to prepare a supplemental examiners answer in response to a reply brief.

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?

The amendment should be entered with no fees charged to practitioners deposit account.
The amendment should be entered, but the fee for a second month extension of time should be charged to the practitioners deposit account.
The amendment should not be entered because it is untimely.
The request to charge any required fees, including fees for any necessary extension of time, is ineffective because it was not made in a separate paper.
Statements (C) and (D) are in accord with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP.

A patent application includes the following Claim 1: Claim 1. A method of making an electrical device comprising the steps of: (i) heating a base made of carbon to a first temperature in the range of 1875Â°C to 1925Â°C; (ii) passing a first gas over said heated base, said first gas comprising a mixture of hydrogen, SiCl4, phosphorus, and methane, whereby said first gas decomposes over said heated base and thereby forms a first deposited layer of silicon, phosphorus and carbon on said heated base; (iii) heating said base having said deposited layer to a second temperature of approximately 1620Â°C; and (iv) passing a second gas over said base heated to said second temperature, said second gas consisting of a mixture of hydrogen, SiCl4, AlCl3, and methane, whereby said second gas decomposes over said heated base to form a second deposit layer adjacent said first layer, said second layer comprising silicon, aluminum and carbon. Assuming proper support in the specification, which of the following claims, if presented in the same application, is a proper claim in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?

Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein said first temperature is in the range of 1800Â°C to 2000Â°C.
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein said first gas further comprises an inert gas.
Claim 4. The method of claim 1, wherein said second gas further comprises Argon
Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein said first gas is an inert gas such as Argon
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein said second gas consists of a mixture of hydrogen, SiCl4 and AlCl3 only.

In accordance with the USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the the following documents, if any, must also contain a separate verification statement?

Small entity statements.
A petition to make an application special.
A claim for foreign priority.
An English translation of a non-English language document.
None of the above.

Lucy, new associate of a registered practitioner, wants to know whether she must file an application data sheet with a provisional patent application of an applicant and what information she should include on the application data sheet. Lucy has previously submitted an application data sheet with a previously filed application for another applicant, but has discovered a discrepancy with the information contained in the declaration and application data sheet. Lucy wonders if she needs to correct the error if the correct information is contained in the declaration. She also asks how errors may be corrected. With respect to the filing of an application data sheet, which of the following is not in accord with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP for applications filed on or after January 1, 2001?

An application data sheet is a sheet or sheets that may be voluntarily submitted in either provisional or nonprovisional applications, which contains bibliographic data, arranged in a format specified by the Office. If an application data sheet is provided, the application data sheet is part of the provisional or nonprovisional application for which it has been submitted.
Bibliographic data on an application data sheet includes: (1) applicant information, (2) correspondence information, (3) application information, (4) representative information, (5) domestic priority information, (6) foreign priority information, and (7) assignee information.
Once captured by the Office, bibliographic information derived from an application data sheet containing errors may not be corrected and recaptured by a request therefore accompanied by the submission of a supplemental application data sheet, an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.67; nor will a letter pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b) be acceptable.
In general, supplemental application data sheets may be subsequently supplied prior to payment of the issue fee either to correct or update information in a previously submitted application data sheet.
The Office will initially capture bibliographic information from the application data sheet notwithstanding whether an oath or declaration governs the information. Thus, the Office shall generally not look to an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 to see if the bibliographic information contained therein is consistent with the bibliographic information captured from an application data sheet (whether the oath or declaration is submitted prior to or subsequent to the application data sheet).

Mike and Alice, who are not related, are shipwrecked on a heretofore uninhabited and undiscovered island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. In order to signal for help, Mike invents a signaling device using bamboo shoots. Alice witnesses but does not assist in any way in the development of the invention. The signaling device works and a helicopter comes and rescues Alice. However, Mike remains on the island due to overcrowding on the helicopter. Unfavorable weather conditions have prevented Mikes rescue to date. Alice comes to you, a registered patent practitioner, to file an application for a patent and offers to pay you in advance. Which of the following, in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, is true?

Since Mike invented the invention, Alice cannot properly file an application for a patent in her name even though Mike is unavailable.
Since Mike is unavailable, you may properly file an application for a patent without his consent. You can accept the money from Alice as payment for the application.
Since Mike is not available and cannot be reached, Alice may properly sign the declaration on his behalf since she has witnessed the invention and knows how to make and use it.
Alice should file an application in her name since she has witnessed the invention and knows how to make and use it. Subsequently, when Mike becomes available, the inventorship may be changed to the correct inventorship.
Even though Mike and Alice are not related, Alice may properly file an application on Mikes behalf.

In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following is true?

In rejecting claims the examiner may rely upon facts within his own personal knowledge, unless the examiner qualifies as an expert within the art, in which case he is precluded from doing so, since only evidence of one of ordinary skill in the art is permitted.
If an applicant desires to claim subject matter in a reissue which was the same subject matter waived in the statutory invention registration of another, the applicant is precluded by the waiver from doing so, even though the applicant was not named in the statutory invention registration.
If an applicant, knowing that the subject matter claimed in his patent application was on sale in Michigan and sales activity is a statutory bar under 35 USC 102(b) to the claims in his application, nevertheless withholds the information from the patent examiner examining the application, and obtains a patent including the claims in question, the applicant may remove any issue of inequitable conduct by filing a request for reexamination based on the sales activity.
An applicant for a patent may overcome a statutory bar under 35 USC 102(b) based on a patent claiming the same invention by acquiring the rights to the patent pursuant to an assignment and then asserting the assignees right to determine priority of invention pursuant to 37 CFR 1.602.
None of the above.

Applicant received a Final Rejection with a mail date of Tuesday, February 29, 2000. The Final Rejection set a 3 month shortened statutory period for reply. Applicant files an Amendment and a Notice of Appeal on Monday, March 27, 2000. The examiner indicates in an Advisory Action that the Amendment will be entered for appeal purposes, and how the individual rejection(s) set forth in the final Office action will be used to reject any added or amended claim(s). The mail date of the examiners Advisory Action is Wednesday, May 31, 2000. In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following dates is the last date for filing a Brief on Appeal without an extension of time?

Saturday, May 27, 2000.
Monday, May 29, 2000 (a Federal holiday, Memorial Day).
Tuesday, May 30, 2000.
Wednesday, May 31, 2000.
Tuesday, August 29, 2000.

In accordance with USPTO rules and the procedure set forth in the MPEP, which one of the following is not required for a provisional application filed in the USPTO?

A specification.
A drawing as prescribed by 35 USC 113.
An application fee.
A claim.
A cover sheet complying with the rule.

Which of the following practices or procedures may be properly employed to overcome a rejection properly based on 35 USC 102(e)?

Persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art.
Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing that the reference invention is not by "another."
Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 showing prior invention, if the reference is not a U.S. patent that either claims the same invention or claims an obvious variation of the subject matter in the rejected claim(s).
(A) and (C).
(A), (B) and (C).

A claim in an application recites “[a] composition containing: (a) 35-55% polypropylene; and (b) 45-65% polyethylene.” The sole prior art reference describes, as the only relevant disclosure, a composition containing 34.9% polypropylene and 65.1% polyethylene. In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, the primary examiner should properly:

Indicate the claim allowable over the prior art because there is no teaching, motivation or suggestion to increase the amount of polypropylene from 34.9% to 35% and decrease the amount of polyethylene from 65.1% to 65%.
Reject the claim under 35 USC 102 as anticipated by the prior art reference.
Reject the claim under 35 USC 103 as obvious over the prior art reference.
Reject the claim alternatively under 35 USC 102 as anticipated by or under 35 USC 103 as obvious over the prior art reference.
None of the above.

Practitioner Smith filed a utility patent application on January 5, 2001, with informal drawings. Upon review of the drawings, the USPTO concluded that the drawings were not in compliance with the 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) and (k), and were not suitable for reproduction. In an Office communication, Smith was notified of the objection and given two months to correct the drawings so that the application can be forwarded to a Technology Center for examination. Which of the following complies with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP for a complete bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action?

Smith timely files a response requesting that the objections to the drawings be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.
Smith timely files a response requesting that the objections to the drawings be held in abeyance since the requirement increases up-front costs for the patent applicant, and the costs can be avoided if patentable subject matter is not found.
Smith timely files a response requesting that the objections to the drawings be held in abeyance until fourteen months from the earliest claimed priority date.
Smith timely files a response correcting the drawings to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) and (k), and making them suitable for reproduction.
All of the above.

In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following does not constitute probative evidence of commercial success to support a contention of non-obviousness?

In a utility case, gross sales figures accompanied by evidence as to market share.
In a utility case, gross sales figures accompanied by evidence as to the time period during which the product was sold.
In a utility case, gross sales figures accompanied by evidence as to what sales would normally be expected in the market.
In a utility case, gross sales figures accompanied by evidence of brand name recognition.
In a design case, evidence of commercial success clearly attributable to the design, and not to improved performance of the device.

An examiner has advanced a reasonable basis for questioning the adequacy of the enabling disclosure in the specification of your clients patent application, and has properly rejected all the claims in the application. The claims in the application are drawn to a computer program system. In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, the rejection should be overcome by submitting:

factual evidence directed to the amount of time and effort and level of knowledge required for the practice of the invention from the disclosure alone.
arguments by you (counsel) alone, inasmuch as they can take the place of evidence in the record.
an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 by an affiant, who is more than a routineer in the art, submitting few facts to support his conclusions on the ultimate legal question of sufficiency, i.e., that the system "could be constructed."
opinion evidence directed to the ultimate legal issue of enablement.
patents to show the state of the art for purposes of enablement where these patents have an issue date later than the effective filing date of the application under consideration.

Inventor files an application for a non-theoretical metal alloy. The application as originally filed contains the following Claim 1: Claim 1. A metal alloy comprising at least 20% by volume of iron; at least 10% by volume of gallium, and at least 10% by volume of copper. In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following claims would be properly held indefinite under 35 USC 112(2)?

Claim 2: The alloy of claim 1 containing 66% by volume of gallium and 14% by volume of copper.
Claim 2: The alloy of claim 1 containing at least 21% by volume of iron, 11% by volume of gallium, and 10.01% by volume of copper.
Claim 2: The alloy of claim 1 containing 20% by volume of iron, 10% by volume of gallium, and 10% by volume of copper.
Claim 2: The alloy of claim 1 containing 54% by volume of copper and 27% by volume of gallium.
Claim 2: The alloy of claim 1 containing at least 1% by volume of silver.

Pos.	Name	Entered on	Points	Result
Table is loading
No data available

Quiz Summary

Information

Results

Results

Categories

1. Question

2. Question

3. Question

4. Question

5. Question

6. Question

7. Question

8. Question

9. Question

10. Question

11. Question

12. Question

13. Question

14. Question

15. Question

16. Question

17. Question

18. Question

19. Question

20. Question

21. Question

22. Question

23. Question

24. Question

25. Question

26. Question

27. Question

28. Question

29. Question

Average score
Your score