The document provides answers and explanations for 10 multiple choice questions regarding USPTO procedures and guidelines from the MPEP. The summaries are: 1. The most correct answer is that a rejection of claims can be appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, while an objection requiring deletion of new matter is subject to supervisory review by petition. 2. All answers were credited for a question. 3. The most correct answer is that an interview should only be held when it could serve to develop and clarify specific issues and lead to mutual understanding between the examiner and applicant to advance prosecution.

1. Oct 2003 Exam Morning Session

2. 1. ANSWER: (C) isthe most correct answer.MPEP§ 2163.06, underthe heading“ReviewOf NewMatterObjectionsAndRejections,”states“A
rejectionof claimsisreviewable bythe Boardof PatentAppealsandInterferences,whereasanobjectionandrequirementtodeletenewmatter
issubjectto supervisoryreviewbypetitionunder37 CFR1.181. If both the claimsandspecificationcontainnewmattereitherdirectlyor
indirectly, andthere hasbeenbotharejectionandobjectionbythe examiner,the issue becomesappealable andshouldnotbe decidedby
petition.”Answer(C) isnotaccord withthe USPTO rulesandthe proceduressetforthinthe MPEP. (A),(B) and (D) are incorrect.Theyare in
accord withproperUSPTO procedure.See MPEP§ 2163.06, underthe heading“ReviewOf NewMatterObjectionsAndRejections.”(E) isnot
correct because (C) iscorrect.MPEP § 2163.06.

3. 2. CREDIT GIVEN FOR ALL ANSWERS.

4. 3. ANSWER: (B) isthe most correct answer.MPEP§ 713.01, underthe heading“SchedulingAndConductingAn Interview,”states“[a]ninterview
shouldbe hadonlywhenthe nature of the case is suchthat the interviewcouldserve todevelopandclarifyspecificissues andleadtoa mutual
understandingbetweenthe examinerandthe applicant,andtherebyadvance the prosecutionof the application.”(A)isincorrect.37 CFR §
1.133(a)(2); MPEP § 713.02. Section713.02 statesthat although“[a] requestforan interviewpriortothe firstOffice actionisordinarilygranted
incontinuingorsubstitute applications[,][a] requestforaninterviewinall otherapplicationsbefore the firstactionisuntimelyandwill notbe
acknowledgedif written,orgrantedif oral.37 CFR 1.133(a).” (C) isincorrect.MPEP § 713.03. Larry isonlysoundingoutthe examinerandhasno
authoritytocommitJoe to any agreementreachedwiththe examiner.(D) isincorrect.MPEP§ 713.09. Jane hasno rightto an interview
followingthe final rejection.Althoughsuchaninterviewmaybe grantedif the examinerisconvincedthatdisposal orclarificationforappeal may
be accomplishedwithonlynominal furtherconsideration,interviewsmerelytorestate argumentsof recordor to discussnewlimitationswhich
wouldrequire more thannominal reconsiderationornewsearchshouldbe denied.(E) isincorrectbecause (D) isincorrect

5. 4. ANSWER: (C) isthe most correct answer.Whenthe specificationexpresslyprovidesaspecial definitionforatermusedin the claims,the term
mustbe giventhatspecial meaning.SeeMPEP§ 2111.01. (A) is incorrectbecause aterm isgivenitsplainmeaningonlywhenthe specification
doesnotprovide a definitionforthe term.Id.(B) isincorrectbecause the specificationdefinesthe termasbeinginclusive of elemental copper.
See MPEP § 2111.01. (D) isincorrectbecause itdoesnot take intoaccount the definitionof copperfoundinthe specification.See MPEP§
2111.01.

6. 5. ANSWER: (B) isthe most correct answer.MPEP§ 2141.01. QuotingfromPanduitCorp.v. DennisonMfg.Co.,810 F.2d 1561, 1568, 1 USPQ2d
1593, 1597 (Fed.Cir.),cert.denied,481 U.S. 1052 (1987), MPEP 2141.01, underthe heading“PriorArtAvailable Under35U.S.C. 102 Is Available
Under 35 U.S.C.103,” states“‘[b]eforeansweringGraham's'content'inquiry,itmustbe knownwhetherapatentor publicationisinthe priorart
under35 U.S.C.§ 102.’ Subjectmatterthat ispriorart under35 U.S.C.§ 102 can be usedto supporta rejectionundersection103. Ex parte
Andresen,212 USPQ 100, 102 (Bd.Pat.App.& Inter.1981) (‘itappearstous that the commentator[of 35 U.S.C.A.] andthe [congressional]
committee viewedsection103 as includingall of the variousbarstoa patentas setforthin section102.’).”Because the printedpublicationin(B)
was notpublisheduntilafterthe filingdate of the patentapplication,itdoesnotconstitute priorart.(A) isincorrectbecause the patentpre-
datesthe application,therefore qualifyingaspriorart, and comesfromthe same fieldasthe application,thereforequalifyingasanalogous.(C) is
incorrectbecause the printedpublicationpre-datesthe application,therefore qualifyingaspriorart,and concernsthe same particularproblem
soughtto be solvedinthe patentapplication,therefore qualifyingasanalogous.(D) isincorrectbecause the printedpublicationpre-datesthe
application,thereforequalifyingaspriorart, andcomesfrom the same fieldasthe application,thereforequalifyingasanalogous.(E) isincorrect
because the patentissuedbeforethe application,therefore qualifyingaspriorart, and concernsthe same particularproblemsoughttobe
solvedinthe patentapplication,therefore qualifyingasanalogous.The USPTOclassificationinadifferentclassdoesnotrenderthe patent
nonanalogous.See MPEP§ 2141.01(a) (“While PatentOffice classificationof references.. . are some evidence of ‘nonanalogy’or‘analogy’
respectively,the courthasfound‘the similaritiesanddifferencesinstructure andfunctionof the inventionstocarryfar greaterweight.’”).

7. 6. ANSWER: (B) isthe most correct answer.37 CFR § 1.137; andMPEP § 2268. The patentownerwill needtofile apetitionforentryof late
papersinorder to have theirresponse entered,consideredandactedupon.AccordingtoMPEP 2268, “[p]ursuantto37 CFR 1.550(d), an ex
parte reexaminationproceedingisterminatedif the patentownerfailstofile atimelyandappropriateresponsetoanyOffice ... An ex parte
reexaminationproceedingterminatedunder37 CFR 1.550(d) can be revivedif the delayinresponse bythe patent... was unavoidable in
accordance with37 CFR1.137(a), or unintentional inaccordance with37 CFR 1.137(b).” (A) isnot the mostcorrect answer.In a reexamination
proceeding,requestsforextensionsof time mustbe filedonorbefore the dayon whichaction by the patentownerisdue pursuantto37 CFR§
1.550(c). See MPEP§ 2265. (C) isincorrect.(C) isinconsistentwithMPEP§ 2266, whichstatesthatif the patentownerfailstofile atimely
response toanyOffice action,the reexaminationproceedingwill be terminated,andafterthe proceedingisterminated,the Commissionerwill
proceedtoissue a reexaminationcertificate.There isnoprovisionforissuinganotice of allowance inareexaminationproceeding.Further,(C) is
incorrectinasmuchas the examinershouldnotmail aNotice of Allowance andgranta newpatent.(D) isnot the mostcorrect answer.Ina
reexaminationproceedingwhere patentownerfailstofile atimelyandappropriate response toanyOffice action,the reexaminationproceeding
will be terminatedviaissuance of the Notice of IntenttoIssue ReexaminationCertificate.See MPEP§ 2266. (E) isnot the mostcorrect answer.
In a reexaminationproceeding,requestsforextensionsof time mustbe filedonorbefore the dayon whichactionbythe patentownerisdue
pursuantto 37 C.F.R.§ 1.550(c).

8. 7. ANSWER: (C) isthe bestanswer.MPEP §§ 2107.01 and 2107.02. MPEP § 2107.01, underthe heading“TherapeuticorPharmacological Utility,”
citesIn re Chilowsky,229F.2d 457, 461-2, 108 USPQ321, 325 (CCPA 1956); In re Gazave,379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ92, 96 (CCPA 1967); and
Nelsonv.Bowler,626 F.2d 853, 856, 206 USPQ 881, 883 (CCPA 1980) as takingthe positionthat“[i]nventionsassertedtohave utilityinthe
treatmentof humanor animal disordersare subjecttothe same legal requirementsforutilityasinventionsinanyotherfieldof technology.”
MPEP § 2107.02, underthe heading“The ClaimedInventionIsThe FocusOf The UtilityRequirement,”states“.. . regardlessof the categoryof
inventionthatisclaimed(e.g.,productorprocess),anapplicantneedonlymake one credible assertionof specificutility forthe claimed
inventiontosatisfy35U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112; additional statementsof utility,evenif not"credible,"do notrenderthe claimedinvention
lackinginutility.See,e.g.,... In re Gottlieb,328 F.2d 1016, 1019, 140 USPQ 665, 668 (CCPA 1964) (‘Havingfoundthatthe antibioticisuseful for
some purpose,itbecomesunnecessarytodecide whetheritisinfact useful forthe otherpurposes'indicated'inthe specificationaspossibly
useful.’).”The issue iswhetherMr.Bloc hasdisclosedaspecificutilityforthe claimedcompoundYsufficienttosatisfythe practical utility
requirementof 35 U.S.C § 101. Accordingto the setof facts,we knowthat compoundY isan intermediate inthe chemical manufactureof
syntheticZ.We are giventwoutilitiesforsyntheticZ:1) alleviatingpain,autilityitshareswiththe natural formof Z; and,2) curingcancer. The
examinerfocusesonthe disclosure thatsyntheticZisa cure for cancer.Evenif one were toagree that syntheticZ’sability tocure cancer
amountsto an incredibleutility,aclaimtothe intermediatecompoundYwouldnotrunafoul of the utilityrequirementof 35 U.S.C. § 101 where
anothersubstantial,credibleandspecificutilityisalternativelydemonstrated.Here,the specificationdisclosesthatsyntheticZ,like the natural
formof Z, alleviatespain.The alleviationof painisanothersubstantial, credible andspecificutilityandservestogive compoundYanalternative
utilitytothatof beingusedtomake a cancer-curingsubstance.Anapplicantneednotshowthatall disclosedutilitiesare credible.Anapplicant
needonlyshowthatone of the disclosedutilitiesisinfactcredible.Inre Gottlieb,supra.The establishmentof acredible,substantial andspecific
utilityrendersthe disclosureof anadditional incredible utilitysuperfluous,andtherefore ultimatelyirrelevant.Accordingly,Mr.Bloc’sbest
course of actionisto make the argumentthathe hasdisclosedanothersubstantial,credible,andspecificutility,notwithstandingthe disclosure
of curingcancer.(A) is notthe mostcorrect answer.The advice couldpreventhimfromgettingapatenttowhichhe may be entitled.(B) isnot
the most correct answer.A cure for cancer isostensiblyincredible.Itishardlya response tothe examiner’srejectiontoaskfor the chance to
prove one can cure cancer.(D) isnot the mostcorrect answer.While itistrue that the utilityrequirementisaddressedtothe claimedinvention,
whichhere iscompoundY not syntheticZ,itisnot enoughtorespondbyrepeatingwhatthe inventionisbut,rather,toshow thatthe invention
has indeedasubstantial,credible,andspecificutility.Whateverisclaimedasthe invention,itmustcomplywiththe utilityrequirementof 35
U.S.C.§ 101. Here the examinerstatesthatthe claimdoesnotcomply,asevidencedbythe incredible utilityof the finalproduct.Itis Mr. Bloc’s
responsibilitytothenshowthatcompoundY doescomplywith35 U.S.C. § 101 by showingthatitsendproducthas a substantial,credible,and
specificutility.(E) isnotthe mostcorrect answer.NotingthatsyntheticZismodeledonnatural Z doesnotgo far enoughinestablishinga
substantial,credible andspecificutilityforcompoundY.ItissyntheticZ’stherapeuticabilitytoalleviate painwhichestablishesthe necessary
alternative utility.

9. 8. ANSWER: (D) isthe mostcorrect answer. Assetforthin MPEP § 2135, underthe heading“General Requirementsof 35 U.S.C.102(d),” states
“(C) The foreignpatentorinventor’scertificatemustbe actuallygranted(e.g.,bysealingof the papersinGreatBritain) before the U.S.filing
date.It neednotbe published.”Answer(A) isincorrectbecause itisone of the four conditionsestablishedby35 U.S.C.§ 102(d). MPEP § 2135,
underthe heading“General Requirementsof 35 U.S.C.102(d),” states“(A) The foreignapplicationmustbe filedmore than12 monthsbefore
the effective U.S.filingdate….”Answer(B) isincorrectbecause itisone of the fourconditionsestablishedby35 U.S.C.§ 102(d). MPEP § 2135,
underthe heading“General Requirementsof 35 U.S.C.102(d),” states“(B) The foreignapplicationmusthave beenfiledbythe same applicantas
inthe UnitedStatesor byhisor her legal representativesorassigns.”Answer(C) isincorrectbecause itisone of the fourconditionsestablished
by 35 U.S.C.§ 102(d). MPEP § 2135, underthe heading“General Requirementsof 35 U.S.C.102(d),” states“(C) The foreignpatentorinventor’s
certificate mustbe actuallygranted(e.g.,bysealingof the papersinGreatBritain) before the U.S.filingdate.Itneednotbe published.”Answer
(E) is incorrectbecause itisone of the fourconditionsestablishedby35 U.S.C.§ 102(d). MPEP § 2135, underthe heading“General Requirement
of 35 U.S.C.102(d)” states“(D) The same inventionmustbe involved.”See alsoMPEP§ 2135.01(IV).

10. 9. ANSWER: The most correctansweris (E).See MPEP§ 201.11, underthe heading“VI.WhenNotEntitledToBenefitEarlierOf FilingDate,”
states“[a]nyclaimina continuation-in-partapplicationwhichisdirectedsolelytosubjectmatteradequatelydisclosedunder35 U.S.C.112 inthe
parentnonprovisional applicationisentitledtothe benefitof the filingdate of the parentnonprovisional application.However,if aclaimina
continuation-in-partapplicationrecitesafeature whichwasnotdisclosedoradequatelysupportedbyaproperdisclosure under35 U.S.C.112 in
the parentnonprovisionalapplication,butwhichwasfirstintroducedoradequatelysupportedinthe continuation-in-partapplicationsucha
claimisentitledonlytothe filingdate of the continuation-in-partapplication.See Inre Chu,66. F.3d292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed.Cir.1995) and
Transco Products,Inc.v. Performance ContractingInc.,38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed.Cir.1994).” Accordingly,claims1-10are entitledto
the benefitof the filingdate of the firstapplication,butclaims11-20 are not entitledtothe benefitof the filingdate of the firstapplication
because claims11-20 recite animprovedcapacitor,whichwasnotdisclosedinthe firstapplication.Claims1-10 have aneffective filingdate
earlierthanthe publicationdate of the article.Claims11-20have a filingdate laterthanthe publicationdate of the article.For35 U.S.C.102(a)
to apply,the reference musthave apublicationdate earlierintime thanthe effective filingdate of the application.See MPEP706.02(a),
paragraph “III.35 U.S.C. 102(a).” Thus,answers(A)-(D) are incorrect.

11. 10. ANSWER:(E) is the most correctanswer.Asset forthinMPEP § 2173.02, “[d]efinitenessof claimlanguage mustbe analyzed,notina
vacuum, but inlightof:(A) The contentof the particularapplicationdisclosure;(B) The teachingsof the priorart; and(C) The claim
interpretationthatwouldbe givenbyone possessingthe ordinarylevelof skill inthe pertinentartat the time the inventionwasmade.”Answers
(A),(B) and(C) each identifycriteriatobe analyzedinconsideringwhetherclaimlanguageisdefinite,thereforeanswer(E) whichincludeseach
of these answersisthe mostcorrectanswer.Answer(D) isincorrectsince itdoesnotinclude criteria(C).

12. 11. ANSWER:The correctansweris (C).See MPEP§ 706.02(l) et seq.Inaccordance withproperUSPTO policyandprocedure,the priorart
exclusionof 35 U.S.C.§ 103(c) can onlybe invokedwhenthe reference onlyqualifiesaspriorart under35 U.S.C.§ 102(f),35 U.S.C.§ 102(g), or
35 USC 102(e) for applicationsfiledonorafterNovember29,1999, the applicationandthe reference were commonlyowned,or subjecttoan
assignmenttothe same person,atthe time the inventionwasmade,andthe reference wasusedinanobviousnessrejectionunder35 U.S.C.§
103(a). Answer(A) isincorrect.The priorart exclusionin35 U.S.C.§ 103(c) cannotobviate rejectionsmade under35U.S.C. § 102(e). See MPEP
706.02(l)(1). Answer(B) isincorrect.The priorart exclusionin35 U.S.C.§ 103(c) cannot obviate double patentingrejections.See MPEP§§
706.02(l)(1) and (l)(3).

13. 12. ANSWER:(C) isthe mostcorrect answer.MPEP § 106 states“[t]he assignee of recordof the entire interestinanapplicationmayintervene in
the prosecutionof the application,appointinganattorneyoragentof hisor her ownchoice.See 37 CFR § 3.71. Suchintervention,however,
doesnotexclude the applicantfromaccesstothe applicationtosee thatit isbeingprosecutedproperly,unlessthe assigneemakesspecific
requesttothat effect.”(A),(B),(D),and(E) are incorrect.MPEP § 409.03(i) isdirectlycontraryto answer(A),andprovidesthatanonsigning
inventorcannotrevoke orgive a powerof attorneywithoutagreementof all namedinventorsorthe 37 CFR § 1.47(b) applicant.(B) isincorrect.
MPEP § 106 doesnot empoweraninventorwhohasassignedhisorherrightsto exclude anon-signingjointinventorfromaccessingan
applicationinwhichthe latterparty isnamedas a jointinventor.(E) isincorrect.MPEP§ 106. CorporationD,as an assignee of apart interest,
cannot exclude the non-signingjointinventorfromaccesstothe application.See also,MPEP§ 106.01, whichstates“While itisonlythe assignee
of recordof the entire interestwhocanintervene inthe prosecutionof anapplicationorinterference tothe exclusionof the applicant,an
assignee of apart interestora licenseeof exclusive rightisentitledtoinspectthe application.”(D) isincorrectbecause MPEP§ 409.03(i) states
that a nonsigninginventorisentitledtoinspectanypapersinthe application,andordercopiesatthe price setforthin 37 C FR § 1.19.

14. 13. ANSWER:(D) is the mostcorrect answer.35 U.S.C.§ 41(h); MPEP §§ 302.06; 509.02. 35 U.S.C.§ 41(h) specifiesthatthe fees“chargedunder
subsection(a) or(b) shall be reducedby50 percentwithrespecttotheirapplicationtoanysmall businessconcernasdefinedundersection3of
the Small BusinessAct,andto anyindependentinventorornonprofitorganizationasdefinedinregulationsissuedbythe Director.”Since the fee
for a documentaffectingtitleischargedpursuantto35 U.S.C.§ 41(d)(1),itnot subsection(a) or(b),andit isnot entitledtoasmall entity
discount.See alsoMPEP509.02, whichstates,“[o]therfees,establishedundersection41(c) or (d) of Title 35, UnitedStates Code,are not
reducedforsmall entitiessince suchareductionisnotpermittedorauthorizedbyPublicLaw97-247. Feeswhichare not reducedinclude ...
miscellaneousfeesandcharges,37 CFR 1.21.” Feesforrecordingdocumentsaffectingtitleare setunder37 CFR § 1.21(h).See MPEP § 302.06.
(A) isentitledtoasmall entitydiscountbecause itisafee chargedpursuantto 35 U.S.C.41(a)(3)(A).(B) isentitledtoasmall entitydiscount
because itischarged pursuantto 35 U.S.C.41(a)(5).(C) is entitledtoasmall entitydiscountbecauseitischargedpursuantto35 U.S.C. 41(a)(8).
(E) is entitledtoasmall entitydiscount becauseitischargedpursuantto 35 U.S.C.41(b)(1).

15. 14. ANSWER:(A) isthe most correct answer.35 U.S.C. § 112, firstparagraph;MPEP §§ 2164.01 and 2164.06(b). MPEP § 2164.01 states“[t]he
standardfor determiningwhetherthe specificationmeetsthe enablementrequirementwascastin the Supreme Courtdecisionof Mineral
Separationv.Hyde,242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) whichposturedthe question:isthe experimentationneededtopractice the inventionundue or
unreasonable?Thatstandardisstill the one to be applied.Inre Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed.Cir.1988). Accordingly,
eventhoughthe statute doesnotuse the term ‘undue experimentation,’ithasbeeninterpretedtorequire thatthe claimedinventionbe
enabledsothatany personskilledinthe artcan make anduse the inventionwithoutundue experimentation.”See alsothe discussionof Enzo
Biochem,Inc.v.Calgene,Inc.,52 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed.Cir.1999) in MPEP § 2164.06(b). (B) isincorrect.MPEP § 2107.01, under the heading“III.
TherapeuticOrPharmacological Utility,”states“[t]he Federal Circuithasreiteratedthattherapeuticutilitysufficientunderthe patentlawsisnot
to be confusedwiththe requirementsof the FDA withregardtosafetyandefficacyof drugsto marketedinthe UnitedStates... In re Brana,51
F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed.Cir.1995). Accordingly,Office personnel shouldnotconstrue 35 U.S.C.101, underthe logic of ‘practical’utility
or otherwise,torequire thatanapplicantdemonstrate thatatherapeuticagentbasedonaclaimedinventionisasafe or fullyeffective drugfor
humans.”(C) isincorrect.35 U.S.C. § 112, firstparagraph; MPEP § 2107.02. MPEP § 2107.02, underthe heading“WhenIsAn AssertedUtilityNot
Credible,”states“Rejectionsunder35 U.S.C.101 have beenrarelysustainedbyfederal courts.Generallyspeaking,inthese rare cases,the 35
U.S.C.101 rejectionwassustained... because .. .[applicant] assertedautilitythat.. . was whollyinconsistentwith contemporaryknowledgein
the art. In re Gazave,379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ92, 96 (CCPA 1967).” The disclosure in(C) isinconsistentwithpublished information.(D) is
incorrect.MPEP § 2107.01 underthe heading“RelationshipBetween35U.S.C. 112, FirstParagraph,and 35 U.S.C. 101,” quotesInre Ziegler,992
F.2d 1197, 1200- 1201, 26 USPQ2d 1600, 1603 (Fed.Cir.1993) as stating"The how to use prongof section112 incorporatesasa matterof law
the requirementof 35 U.S.C.101 thatthe specificationdisclose asamatterof fact a practical utilityforthe invention....If the applicationfailsas
a matter of fact to satisfy35 U.S.C.§ 101, thenthe applicationalsofailsasamatter of lawto enable one of ordinaryskill inthe artto use the
inventionunder35 U.S.C.§ 112." Enablementforthe claimsina utilityapplicationisfoundinthe specificationprecedingthe claims,asopposed
to beinginthe claims.The claimsdonot provide theirownenablement.35U.S.C. § 112, firstparagraph.(E) is incorrect. MPEP2107.01 states
that the examiner“musttreatas true a statementof fact made byan applicantinrelationtoan assertedutility,unlesscountervailingevidence
can be providedthatshowsthatone of ordinaryskill inthe art wouldhave a legitimate basistodoubtthe credibilityof sucha statement.”
Inasmuchas countervailingevidence hasbeenproduced,the lackof necessitytotheorize orexplainthe failuresdoesnotalleviatethe inventor
fromcomplyingwith35 U.S.C.§ 112, firstparagraph to provide anenablingdisclosure thatiscommensurateinscope withthe claims.

16. 15. ANSWER:(A) isthe most correct answer.The filingof anamendmentcomplyingwith37CFR § 1.116 is a properreplyunder 37 CFR § 1.113
to a final rejection.SeeMPEP§ 714.13, underthe heading“EntryNot A Matter of Right,”whichstates,inpertinentpart,“A replyunder37 CFR
1.113 islimitedto:(A) anamendmentcomplyingwith37CFR 1.116.” (B) isnot the mostcorrect answerbecause the Notice of Appeal mustbe
accompaniedbythe appeal fee requiredby37 CFR § 1.17(b).(C) is not the mostcorrect answerbecause the RCE mustbe accompaniedby a
submission(i.e.,anamendmentthatmeetsthe replyrequirementof 37 CFR § 1.111). (D) isnot the correct answerbecause CPA practice does
not applytoutilityorplantapplicationsif the priorapplicationhasafilingdate onor afterMay 29, 2000. See MPEP§ 706.07(h), paragraphs I
and IV.(E) is notthe correctanswersince (A) isa properreply.

17. 16. ANSWER:(A) isthe most correct answer.35 U.S.C. § 251, MPEP § 1402 (fifthparagraph).MPEP§ 1402 statesthatone of the “most common
basesforfilingareissue application[is] (A) the claimsare toonarrow or toobroad.” The claimsmay be broadenedinareissue applicationfiled
by the inventorwithintwoyearsfromthe patentissue date.(B) isincorrectsince the 4thparagraphof 35 U.S.C. § 251 statesthat no reissued
patentshall be grantedenlargingthe scope of the clamsof the original patentunlessappliedforwithintwoyearsfromthe grantof the original
patent.(C) and(E) are incorrect.MPEP§ 1402, sixteenthparagraph.Anapplicant’sfailure totimelyfileadivisional applicationwhile the original
applicationisstill pendingisnotconsideredtobe anerror correctable viareissue.See Inre Orita,550 F.2d 1277, 1280, 193 USPQ145, 148 (CCPA
1977). (D) is incorrect.MPEP § 201.06. In orderto claimbenefitunder35U.S.C. § 120 to a parent application,adivisional applicationmustbe
filedwhile the parentpatentapplicationisstillpending.

18. 17. ANSWER:(A) isthe most correct answer.MPEP§ 2144.03 providesthatwhenanapplicantseasonablytraversesanofficially noticedfact,the
examinermaycite areference teachingthe noticedfactandmake the nextactionfinal.Here,applicantdidseasonablytraverse the noticedfact
by demandingproof inresponsetothe rejection.IIistherefore anappropriate actionbythe examiner.Iisalsoan appropriate actionbecause
the examinershouldvacate arejectionbased onofficial noticeif nosupportforthe noticedfactcan be foundinresponse toa challenge bythe
applicant.See Inre Ahlert,424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (C.C.P.A.1970) (“[a]ssertionsof technical factsinareasof esoterictechnologymustalwaysbe
supportedbycitationtosome reference work”and“[a]llegationsconcerningspecific“knowledge”of the priorart,whichmightbe peculiartoa
particularart shouldalsobe supported”).(B) isincorrectbecause (A) iscorrect.(C),(D),and(E) are incorrectbecause actionIIIisimproper.An
applicantisentitledtorespondtoarejectionbyrequestingreconsideration,withorwithoutamendingthe application.37CFR § 1.111(a)(1).
Applicantisalsorequiredtotimelychallenge anoticedfactinorderto preserve the issue forappeal.MPEP§ 2144.03.

19. 18. ANSWER:(A) isthe most correct answer.MPEP§ 2121, underthe heading“WhatConstitutesAn‘EnablingDisclosure’DoesNotDependOn
The Type Of PriorArt The Disclosure IsContainedIn,”states,inreliance uponInre Moreton,288 F.2d 708, 711, 129 USPQ 227, 230 (CCPA 1961):
“The level of disclosure requiredwithinareference tomake itan‘enablingdisclosure’isthe same nomatterwhat type of priorart isat issue....
There isno basisinthe statute (35 U.S.C. 102 or 103) for discriminatingeitherinfavorof or againstpriorart referencesonthe basisof
nationality.”Answer(B) isincorrect.MPEP§ 2121, underthe heading“PriorArtIs PresumedToBe Operable/Enabling,”states that“[w]henthe
reference reliedonexpresslyanticipatesormakesobviousall of the elementsof the claimedinvention,the reference ispresumedtobe
operable.”Answer(C) isincorrect.MPEP§ 2121.01, underthe heading“35 U.S.C. 103 RejectionsAndUse Of InoperativePrior Art,”quotes
Symbol TechnologiesInc.v.OpticonInc.,935 F.2d 1569, 1578, 19 USPQ2d 1241, 1247 (Fed.Cir.1991) as statingthat “a non-enablingreference
may qualifyaspriorart for the purpose of determiningobviousnessunder35 U.S.C.103.” Answer(D) is incorrect.MPEP§ 2121.01 statesthat
“[a] reference containsan‘enablingdisclosure’if the publicwasinpossessionof the claimedinventionbefore the date of invention.”Answer(E)
isincorrectbecause answers(B),(C) and(D) are incorrect.

20. 19. ANSWER:(E) is the most correctanswer.Asset forthinMPEP § 2131.05, “‘Argumentsthatthe allegedanticipatorypriorartis‘nonanalogous
art’ or ‘teachesawayfromthe invention’orisnotrecognizedassolvingthe problemsolvedbythe claimedinvention, [are]not‘germane’toa
rejectionundersection102.’TwinDisc,Inc. v.UnitedStates,231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl.Ct.1986) (quotingInre Self,671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1, 7
(CCPA 1982)). A reference isnolessanticipatoryif,afterdisclosingthe invention, the reference thendisparagesit.The questionwhethera
reference ‘teachesaway’fromthe inventionisinapplicabletoan anticipationanalysis.CeleritasTechnologiesLtd.v.Rockwell International
Corp.,150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed.Cir.1999).”Therefore,answers(A) through(D) are incorrect.See alsoMPEP§
706.02(b) as to waysto overcome arejectionunder35 U.S.C.§ 102.

21. 20. ANSWER:(D) is the mostcorrect answer.MPEP § 201.06(c), underthe heading“INCORPORATION BYREFERENCE”,subheading“B.
ApplicationEntitledtoaFilingDate,”statesthat“[i]f the applicationasoriginallyfiledincludesaproperincorporation byreference of the prior
application(s),anomittedspecificationpage(s) and/ordrawingfigure(s) identifiedina“Notice of OmittedItem(s)”maybe addedbyamendment
providedthe omitteditem(s) containsonlysubjectmatterincommonwithsuchpriorapplication(s).Insuchcase applicantneednotrespondto
the “Notice of OmittedItem(s).”Applicantshouldsubmitthe amendmentaddingthe omittedmaterial priortothe firstOffice actiontoavoid
delaysinthe prosecutionof the application.”(A) and(B) are incorrectbecause the applicationfilingdate will be the date of the filingof the
missingdrawingfigure. See MPEP§ 601.01(g). Furthermore,apriorityclaimunder35 U.S.C.§ 120 in a continuationordivisional applicationdoes
not amountto an incorporationbyreferenceof the applicationtowhichpriorityisclaimed.See MPEP§201.06(c). (C) isincorrect. The
continuationapplicationwill notbe accordedwithafilingdate of January3, 2003 withthe missingdrawingfigure.(E) isincorrectbecausea
petitionunder37CFR § 1.53(e) will notbe grantedif the missingdrawingfigureisinadvertentlyomitted bythe applicantandnotinfact
depositedwiththe USPTOwiththe applicationpapers.

22. 21. ANSWER:(D) is mostcorrect. MPEP § 706.02(b) (8th ed.,Rev.1) statesthat “[a] rejectionbasedon35 U.S.C.§ 102(b) maybe overcome
by…(C) perfectingpriorityunder…35U.S.C.§ 120 byamendingthe specificationof the applicationtocontainaspecificreference toaprior
application…”Answer(A) isincorrectbecause adeclarationandevidence filedunder37 CFR § 1.131 cannot antedate areference thatqualifies
as priorart under35 U.S.C.§ 102(b), a statutorybar. See 37 CFR § 1.131(a); MPEP § 715, “SITUATIONSWHERE 37 CFR1.131 AFFIDAVITSOR
DECLARATIONSAREINAPPROPRIATE.”Answers(B) and(C) are incorrectbecause,asnotedinMPEP § 2131.04, evidence of secondary
considerations,suchasunexpectedresultsorcommercial success,isirrelevantto35 U.S.C. § 102 rejectionsandthuscannot overcome a
rejectionsobased.Inre Wiggins,488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 425 (CCPA 1973). Answer(E) isincorrectbecause toserve asan anticipation
whenthe reference issilentaboutanassertedinherentcharacteristic,suchgapinthe reference maybe filledwithrecourse toextrinsic
evidence.ContinentalCanCo.USA v. MonsantoCo.,948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed.Cir.1991). See alsoMPEP § 2131.01,
“Multiple Reference 35U.S.C.102 Rejections.”

23. 22. ANSWER:(E) is the most correctanswer.MPEP § 103, underthe heading“PublishedU.S.PatentApplications”statesthat“If a patent
applicationhasbeen publishedpursuantto35 U.S.C. 122(b), thena copy of the specification,drawings,andall papersrelatingtothe file of that
publishedapplication(whetherabandonedorpending) maybe providedtoanypersonuponwrittenrequestandpaymentof the fee.”(A),and
(B) are not correct.37 CFR § 1.14(c)(2).Once an applicationhasbeenpublished,acopyisavailable tothe publicuponwrittenrequestand
paymentof a fee.(C) and(D) are not correct.As statedinMPEP § 103, underthe heading“PublishedU.S.PatentApplications,”if the published
patentapplicationispending,the applicationfile itself will notbe availabletothe publicforinspection.”

24. 23. ANSWER:(C) isthe mostcorrect answer.Pursuantto35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph6, In re Donaldson Co.,16 F.3d1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845,
1849 (Fed.Cir.1994) (inbanc),and MPEP § 2181, underthe heading“WrittenDescriptionNecessaryToSupportA ClaimLimitationWhich
Invokes35 U.S.C.112, SixthParagraph,”"step"plusfunctionlimitationsshall be construedtocoverthe correspondingactsdisclosedinthe
specificationandtheirequivalents.Accordingly,the stepplusfunctionimitationcorrespondinglyincludesacts(1)-(5) andtheirequivalents.Thus,
inorder to anticipate,apriorart reference mustdiscloseeachandeveryact,or its equivalent,forthe stepplusfunction.If the reference is
shownto notdisclose one of the acts, or itsequivalents,thenthe reference failstoanticipate,whichisthe answersetforthin(C).Thus,(C) is
the most complete answer.(A)isnotthe mostcomplete answerbecause acts(1)-(4) are disclosedinthe reference andthe equivalentof act(5)
has to be dealtwith,i.e.,the equivalentof continuingtowalkmaystill be metbythe reference unlessthe applicantshowsthroughargument
that the reference alsofailstocontainanyequivalentforact(5).Thus, the mostcomplete answeris(C) ascomparedto (A).(B) isnotthe most
correct answerbecause once act (5) is removedfromthe specification,the prior artreference clearlyanticipates(since itotherwise expressly
has acts (1)-(4) andthe other claimlimitations) underthe above recitedfactsabsentact(5) in the specification.SeeDonaldson,16F.3d at 1193,
29 USPQ2d at 1849; MPEP § 2181. (D) is not the mostcomplete answerthe priorartstill anticipatesthe claim.(E) isnotthe mostcorrect answer
because itincludestwoincorrectanswerchoices,(B) and(D).

25. 24. ANSWER:(D) is the mostcorrect answer.MPEP § 2181 underthe heading“ProceduresForDeterminingWhetherThe WrittenDescription
AdequatelyDescribesThe CorrespondingStructure,Material,OrActsNecessaryToSupportA ClaimLimitationWhichInvokes35 U.S.C.112,
SixthParagraph.”35 U.S.C.112, sixthparagraphstatesthat a claimlimitationexpressedinmeansplusfunctionlanguage“shall be construedto
coverthe correspondingstructure,materials,oracts describedinthe specificationand‘equivalentsthereof.’”See alsoB. BraunMedical,Inc.v.
AbbottLab.,124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1899 (Fed.Cir.1997).” The examinerhasmade aprima facie case of equivalentinthe Office
actionto supportthe rejectionbasedon35 U.S.C.§ 102. By amendingthe claimtono longerinclude the meanslimitationin question,the claim
becomesnarrowerinasmuchasitno longerincludesequivalentsunder35 U.S.C.§ 112, paragraph 6 forexaminationpurposes.Thus,(D)
overcomesthe lackof noveltyrejectionunderthesecircumstances.(A) isnotthe mostcorrect answerbecause suchanamended claimwould
continue tolack novelty,sincebothitandthe prior art wouldhave the attachedbar expressly.Furthermore,suchanamendmentwould
introduce newmatterlackingsupportinthe applicationasoriginallyfiled.35U.S.C. § 112, firstparagraph.(B) is notthe most correctanswer
because the “notfoundinthe priorart” argumentdoesnotrebutthe primafacie case of equivalentsraisedbythe examiner. (C) isnotthe most
correct answerbecause itdoesnotaddressthe rejection.(E) isnotthe mostcorrect answerbecause the amendmentwouldraise anewmatter
issue.

26. 25. ANSWER:The mostcorrect answeris(D).See 35 U.S.C.§ 154(b); 37 CFR § 1.702(f); MPEP § 2730 (quotingsection1.702(f)).The application
was filedpriortoMay 29, 2000 and is ineligibleforthe provisionsof PatentTermAdjustment(PTA).Moreover,the filingof aRequestfor
ContinuedExamination(RCE) under35 U.S.C.§ 132(b) and 37 CFR § 1.114 doesnot cause an applicationfiledbefore May29, 2000 to be entitled
to the benefitsPTA underthe provisionsof 35 U.S.C.§ 154(b) and 37 CFR §§ 1.702-1.705. See MPEP § 2730. (A) and(B) are not correct answers
because the applicationwasfiledpriortoMay 29, 2000, the eligibilitydate forapplicationstoreceivethe benefitof PTA provisionsof 35U.S.C. §
154(b) and 37 CFR §§ 1.702 through705. Answerchoice (C) isnotcorrect because utilityapplications,notdesignapplicationsare subjecttothe
PTA provisionsandthe answersuggeststhatdesignapplicationsare eligible forPTA.Answerchoice (E) isnota correct answerbecause the
applicationisnoteligible forPTA andfilinganRCEdoesnot make an ineligible applicationeligible forPTA.Designpatentsare grantedfor
fourteenyeartermsfromthe grant of the patent.35 U.S.C. § 171. Utilitypatentsare subjecttopatenttermadjustment.35U.S.C. § 154(b)

27. 26. ANSWER:(D) is the mostcorrect answer.MPEP § 714.16, third paragraph,states“a supplemental reissue oathordeclarationistreatedasan
amendmentunder37CFR 1.312 because the correctionof the patentwhichitprovidesisan amendmentof the patent,eventhoughno
amendmentisphysicallyenteredintothe specificationorclaim(s).”Answer(A) isincorrectbecause asupplemental oathordeclarationisnot
treatedas an amendmentunder37CFR 1.312 exceptwhensubmittedinareissue.See MPEP§603.01. Answer(B) isincorrectbecause a
supplemental oathordeclarationinareissue will be treatedasanamendmentunder37CFR § 1.312 onlyif filedafterallowance.Answer(C) is
incorrectbecause amendmentsfiledafterthe date the issue fee hasbeenpaidare nolongerpermittedunder37CFR § 1.312. (E) is wrong
because (A) iscorrect.

28. 27. ANSWER:(C) isthe mostcorrect answer.35 U.S.C.§ 101; MPEP 2106, underthe heading“A.IdentifyandUnderstandAnyPractical
ApplicationAssertedforthe Invention.”Withregardtocomputer-relatedinventions,MPEP§ 2106 statesthat “[a]lthoughthe courtshave yetto
define the termsuseful,concrete,andtangible inthe contextof the practical applicationrequirementforsuchinventions,the followingexample
illustratesclaimedinventionsthathave a practical applicationbecause theyproduceuseful,concrete,andtangibleresults: ‘Claimsdrawntoa
long-distance telephone billingprocesscontainingmathematicalalgorithmswere heldtobe directedtopatentablesubjectmatterbecause the
claimedprocessappliesthe Booleanprinciple toproduce auseful,concrete,tangible resultwithoutpre-emptingotherusesof the mathematical
principle.’ AT&TCorp.v.Excel Communications,Inc.,172 F.3d 1352, 1358, 50 USPQ2d 1447, 1452 (Fed.Cir.1999).” See also, State StreetBank&
Trust Co. v.Signature Financial GroupInc.,149 F. 3d 1368, 1374, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1601-02 (Fed.Cir.1998). Answers(A),(B) and(D) are
incorrect.MPEP § 2105 statesthatabstract ideas,lawsof nature and physical phenomenahave beenheldbythe SupremeCourt tobe
unpatentable subjectmatterunder35U.S.C. § 101. Answer(E) isincorrectbecause answers(A),(B) and(C) are incorrect.

29. 28. ANSWER:(A) isthe most correct answer.MPEP§ 2144, underthe heading“Rationale DifferentFromApplicant’sIsPermissible.”PatentA
suggestsaninsertwithreceptaclesthatare circularand whichcan be shapedto complementthe shape of the objecttobe received.The
purpose forthisinPatentA isto keepthe cart organized,notasinthe claimto preventthe objectfromfallingandbreaking.The differencein
objectivesdoesnotdefeatthe case forobviousnessbecause,asMPEP§ 2144 states,the “reasonor motivationtomodifythe reference may
oftensuggestwhatthe inventorhasdone,butfora differentpurposeorto solve adifferentproblem.Itisnotnecessarythatthe prior art
suggestthe combinationtoachieve the same advantage orresultdiscoveredbyapplicant.Inre Linter,458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA
1972) …; In re Dillon,919 F.2d688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed.Cir.1990), cert.denied,500 U.S. 904 (1991) … .” In otherwords, itdoesnotmatter
that PatentA doesnot appreciate the claimedpurpose of preventingbreakage.Itsuggestsaninsertwithreceptaclestoholdbottles.Thatis
enoughtorenderthe claimedsubjectmatterprimafacie obvious.The primafacie case isnotrebuttedbyarguingthatthe purpose forthe
claimedinsertisdifferentformthatspecifiedforthe insertdescribedinPatentA.Thatiswhy answer(C) iswrong.To rebutthe primafacie case,
the practitionermustshowa difference instructure instead.Answer(B) iswrongbecause the primafacie case isnotrebuttedbyshowingthat
PatentA doesnotteach wine bottles.Thisisnotan anticipationrejectionwhere identityof subjectmattermightbe anissue.Thisisaquestion
of obviousness.Therefore,itissufficienttopoint outthat PatentA is a genericteachingof shoppingcartinsertsthatholdobjectsof anysize and
shape.(D) isnot the most correctanswerbecause whatPatentA is interestedindoingisirrelevanttothe questionof obviousness.(E) isnotthe
mostcorrect answerinasmuchas itwas notthe practitioner’sargument.However,the questioninquiresaboutthe meritsof the argumentthat
the practitionermade assetforth inthe penultimate sentence of the question,notthe meritsof some hypothetical replythe examinermay
communicate.

30. 29. ANSWER:(B) is the mostproperanswer.MPEP § 2128.02, underthe heading“Date of AccessibilityCanBe ShownThroughEvidence of
Routine BusinessPractices,”states,inreliance uponConstantv.AdvancedMicro-Devices,Inc.,848 F.2d 1560, 7 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed.Cir.),cert.
denied,988 U.S. 892 (1988), and Inre Hall,781 F.2d897, 228 USPQ 453 (Fed.Cir.1986), “Evidence showingroutinebusiness practicescanbe
usedto establishthe date onwhichpublicationbecame accessible tothe public.Specificevidence showingwhenthe specificdocumentactually
became available isnotalwaysnecessary.”Answer(A) isincorrect.MPEP§ 2128.01, underthe heading“A ThesisPlacedInA UniversityLibrary
May Be PriorArt If Sufficiently Accessible ToThe Public,”states“[a] doctoral thesisindexedandshelvedinalibraryissufficientlyaccessibleto
the publicto constitute priorartas a ‘printedpublication.’Inre Hall,781 F.2d 897, 228 USPQ 453 (Fed.Cir.1986). Even if access tothe libraryis
restricted,areference will constitute a‘printedpublication’aslongasa presumptionisraisedthatthe portionof the publicconcernedwiththe
art wouldknowof the invention.Inre Bayer,568 F.2d 1357, 196 USPQ 670 (CCPA 1978).” Answer(C) isincorrect.MPEP§ 2128.01, underthe
heading“OrallyPresentedPaperCanConstitute A ‘PrintedPublication’If WrittenCopiesAre AvailableWithoutRestriction,” states,inreliance
uponMassachusettsInstitute of Technologyv.ABFortia,774 F.2d 1104, 1109, 227 USPQ 428, 432 (Fed.Cir.1985): “[a] paperwhichisorally
presentedinaforumopento all interestedpersonsconstitutesa‘printedpublication’if writtencopiesare disseminatedwithoutrestriction.”
Answer(D) isincorrect.MPEP § 2128.01, underthe heading“Internal DocumentsIntendedToBe ConfidentialAre NotPrintedPublications,”
states,inreliance uponInre George,2 USPQ2d 1880 (Bd.Pat. App.& Int.1987), Garret Corp. v.UnitedStates,422 F.2d 874, 878, 164 USPQ 521,
524 (Ct.Cl.1970), and NorthernTelecomInc.v.DatapointCorp.,908 F.2d 931, 15 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed.Cir.1990). “[d]ocumentsanditemsonly
distributedinternallywithinanorganizationwhichare intendedtoremainconfidential are not‘printedpublications’no matterhowmanycopies
are distributed.”Answer(E) isincorrect.MPEP§ 2128.02, underthe heading“A Journal Article orOtherPublicationBecomes Available AsPrior
Art on Date of It IsReceivedbya Memberof the Public,”states,inreliance uponInre Schlittler,234F.2d 882, 110 USPQ 304 (CCPA 1956): “[a]
publicationdisseminatedbymail isnotpriorart until itis receivedbyatleastone memberof the public.”

31. 30. ANSWER:(B) or (D) isacceptedas the correct answer.Asto (B) and (D),see MPEP § 706.02(l)(2), underthe heading“II.Evidence RequiredTo
EstablishCommonOwnership.”(B) isacceptedbecause applicants,e.g.,inventors,have the bestknowledge of the ownershipof their
applications,andbecause theirstatementof suchissufficient evidence because of theirparamountobligationof candorandgoodfaithto the
USPTO. (D) reproducesthe examplesetforthunderthe foregoingheading.(A) isincorrectbecause applicantsorthe representativesof record
have the bestknowledge of the ownershipof theirapplications,andbecause theirstatementof suchissufficientevidence becauseof their
paramountobligationof candorandgood faithtothe USPTO.(C) is incorrectbecause the statementdoesnotestablishcommon ownershipat
the time the laterinventionwasmade.35U.S.C. § 103(c). (E) is incorrectbecause itdoesnotestablishthatthe priorart inventionand the
claimedinventionare entirelyorwhollyownedbythe same person.MPEP§ 706.02(l)(2).

32. 31. ANSWER:(C).35 U.S.C.§ 305; MPEP §§ 2258 and 1412.03. MPEP § 2258, underthe heading“ClaimsInProceedingMustNotEnlarge Scope
Of The ClaimsOf The Patent,”states“[w]here neworamendedclaimsare presented... the claimsof the reexaminationproceedingshouldbe
examinedunder35 U.S.C.305, to determinewhethertheyenlarge the scope of the original claims.35 U.S.C.305 statesthat‘no proposed
amendedornewclaimenlargingthe scope of the claimsof the patentwill be permittedinareexaminationproceeding...’."Underthe further
subheading“CriteriaforEnlargementof the Scope of the Claims,”MPEP§ 2258 states“A claimpresentedinareexaminationproceeding
‘enlargesthe scope’of the claimsof the patentbeingreexaminedwherethe claimisbroaderthaneachand everyclaimof the patent.See MPEP
§ 1412.03 for guidance asto whenthe presentedclaimisconsideredtobe abroadeningclaimascomparedwiththe claimsof the patent,i.e.,
whatis broadeningandwhatisnot. If a claimis consideredtobe a broadeningclaim forpurposesof reissue,itislikewiseconsideredtobe a
broadeningclaiminreexamination.”MPEP§ 1412.03, underthe heading“NewCategoryof InventionAddedInReissue –Broadening,”states
“[t]he additionof processclaimsasa newcategoryof inventiontobe claimedinthe patent(i.e.,where therewere nomethodclaimspresentin
the original patent) isgenerallyconsideredasbeingabroadeningof the invention.SeeEx parte Wikdahl,10 USPQ2d 1546, 1549 (Bd.Pat. App.&
Inter.1989).” MPEP 2258, underthe furthersubheading“Rejectionof ClaimsWhere There IsEnlargement,”states“[a]nyclaimina
reexaminationproceedingwhichenlargesthe scope of the claimsof the patentshouldbe rejectedunder35 U.S.C.305.” Since no claimsdrawn
to a methodwere everpresentedduringprosecutionof PatentX(claims1 through4 “are the onlyclaimsthatwere everpresentedduring
prosecutionof the applicationthatmaturedintoPatentX”),the claimrecitedin(C) isnotdirectedto“the inventionasclaimed.”(A),(B),and(D)
are all incorrectbecause eachof theirclaimsare directedtoa hydrocyclone separatorapparatus,i.e.,“the inventionasclaimed,”andtheydo
not enlarge the scope of the claimsinPatentX.(E) isan incorrectanswerbecause (C) isthe correct answer.

33. 32. ANSWER:(B) is the mostcorrect, as onlystatement(2) istrue.The examinerhasthe initial burdentoestablishareasonable basistoquestion
the enablementprovided.MPEP§ 2164.04 states“[i]norderto make a rejection,the examinerhasthe initial burdentoestablishareasonable
basisto questionthe enablementprovidedforthe claimedinvention.Inre Wright,999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d1510, 1513 (Fed.Cir.1993)
(examinermustprovide areasonable explanationastowhythe scope of protectionprovidedbyaclaimisnot adequatelyenabledbythe
disclosure).”Answer(A) isincorrect,because statement(1) isnottrue. The examinermaynotanalyze enablementbefore construingthe claims.
MPEP § 2164.04. Answer(C) isincorrect,because statement(3) isnottrue.The examinermustgive reasonsforthe uncertaintyof the
enablement,evenwhenthereisnoevidence of operabilitywithoutundueexperimentationotherthanthe disclosedembodiments. Inre Brana,
51 F.3d 1560, 1566, 34 USPQ2d 1436, 1441 (Fed.Cir.1995). MPEP § 2164.04 states“[a]ccordingtoIn re Bowen,492 F.2d 859, 862-63, 181 USPQ
48, 51 (CCPA 1974), the minimal requirementisforthe examinertogive reasonsforthe uncertaintyof the enablement.”Answer(D) isincorrect
because itincludesfalse statement(1).Answer(E) isincorrectbecause itincludesfalsestatements(1) and(3).

34. 33. ANSWER:(D) is correct."Inherentcomponentsof elementsrecitedhave antecedentbasisinthe recitationof the componentsthemselves."
MPEP § 2173.05(e). The MPEP providesananalogousexample:"the limitation'the outersurface of saidsphere'would notrequire an
antecedentrecitationthatthe sphere have anoutersurface."Id.(A),(B),(C),and(E) are all examplesof thingswhichinherentlyhave the
claimedcharacteristicanddonot have an antecedentbasisproblem;thatis,all circleshave acenter,all ellipseshaveamajordiameter,all
sphereshave anoutersurface,andall rectangleshave anarea, and these characteristicsneednotbe providedwithexpressantecedentbasis.
The ellipse example isfromBose Corp.v.JBL Inc.,61 USPQ2d 1216, 1219 (Fed.Cir.2001) ("There canbe no dispute thatmathematicallyan
inherentcharacteristicof an ellipse isamajordiameter.").The leverrecitedin(D) isnotan inherentcomponentof amachine andtherefore
requiresexpressantecedentbasis.

35. 34. ANSWER:(A),describingaprocedure thatisnotin accordance withthe USPTO rulesand the proceduressetforthinthe MPEP , the most
correct answer.MPEP § 609, underthe heading“MinimumRequirementsforanInformationDisclosure Statement,”underthe subheading“B(3).
InformationDisclosure StatementFiledAfterB(2),butPriorto Paymentof Issue Fee 37 CFR 1.97 (d)”,andsubheading“B(5) StatementUnder37
CFR 1.97(e).”(A) The statementspecifiedin37CFR § 1.97(e) requiresthatthe practitionercertify,afterreasonableinquiry,thatnoitemof
informationcontainedinthe IDSwasknownto any individual designatedin37CFR § 1.56(c) more than three monthspriorto the filingof the
informationdisclosure statement.The practitionercannotcertifythisbecause the reference wasknowntothe clientbeforeFebruary11,2002,
the time of filingof the utilityapplication,whichwasmore thanthree monthspriorto the filingof the informationdisclosure statement.See(B),
statinga procedure thatconformswiththe USPTO rulesandthe proceduressetforthinthe MPEP, isan incorrectanswer.Under37 CFR §
1.313(a), a petitiontowithdrawthe applicationfromissueisnotrequiredif aproperRCE isfiledbefore paymentof the issue fee.(C),statinga
procedure thatconformswiththe USPTO rulesandthe proceduressetforthinthe MPEP,is an incorrectanswer.A practitionercanfile a
continuingapplicationonorbefore the date thatthe issue fee isdue andpermitthe parentapplicationtobecome abandonedforfailure topay
the issue fee.(D),statingaprocedure thatconformswiththe USPTO rulesandthe proceduressetforthinthe MPEP, isan incorrectanswer.
Under 37 CFR § 1.313(c)(3), a petitiontowithdrawthe applicationfromissuecanbe filedafterpaymentof the issuefee topermitthe express
abandonmentof the applicationinfavorof acontinuingapplication.(E),statingaprocedure thatconformswiththe USPTOrulesandthe
proceduressetforthinthe MPEP, isan incorrectanswer.Under37 CFR§ 1.313(c)(2), a petitiontowithdrawthe applicationfromissue canbe
filedafterpaymentof the issue feetopermitconsiderationof aRequestforContinuedExamination(RCE) under37CFR § 1.114. See alsoMPEP
§ 1308.

36. 35. ANSWER:(E) is the most correctanswerbecause (B) and(C) togetherare correct. Regarding(B),see MPEP§ 2163.02, whichstates,
“Wheneverthe [writtendescription] issuearises,the fundamental factual inquiryiswhetherthe specificationconveyswithreasonable clarityto
those skilledinthe artthat,as of the filingdate sought,applicantwasinpossessionof the inventionasnowclaimed.See,e.g.,Vas-Cath,Inc.v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed.Cir.1991). An applicantshowspossessionof the claimedinventionby
describingthe claimedinventionwithall of itslimitationsusingsuchdescriptive meansaswords,structures,figures,diagrams,andformulasthat
fullysetforththe claimedinvention.Lockwoodv.AmericanAirlines,Inc.,107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed.Cir.1997).”
Regarding(C),see MPEP§ 2163.02, whichstates,“The courts have describedthe essential questiontobe addressedinadescription
requirementissue inavarietyof ways.Anobjective standardfordeterminingcompliance withthe writtendescriptionrequirementis,‘doesthe
descriptionclearlyallowpersonsof ordinaryskillinthe artto recognize thathe or she inventedwhatisclaimed.’Inre Gosteli,872F.2d 1008,
1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed.Cir.1989). UnderVas-Cath,Inc.v.Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed.Cir.1991),
to satisfythe writtendescriptionrequirement,anapplicantmustconveywithreasonable claritytothose skilledinthe art that,as of the filing
date sought,he or she wasin possessionof the invention,andthatthe invention,inthatcontext,iswhateverisnowclaimed.”(B) alone and(C)
alone are incorrectinasmuchas theydonot addresseachof the examiner’srationalesforthe rejection.(A) is incorrect.MPEP§ 2161. The
writtendescriptionrequirementisseparate anddistinctfromthe enablementrequirementof 35 U.S.C. § 112, firstparagraph. The argument
doesnotaddressand otherwise traversethe rejectionthatwasmade.(D) isincorrect.MPEP § 2163.03, underthe headings“RELIANCEON
FILINGDATE OFPARENTAPPLICATION UNDER35 U.S.C. 120,” and “RELIANCEON PRIORITYUNDER 35 U.S.C. 119.” The relatedcase must be an
applicationhavingafilingdate towhichthe instantapplicationisentitled,e.g.,aparentor provisionalapplication.The argumentdoesnotshow
the instantapplicationisrelatedtothe “relatedapplication”under35 U.S.C.§§ 119 or 120. (B) alone isnotcorrect because (C) isalsocorrect.
(C) alone isnot correct because (B) isalsocorrect.

37. 36. ANSWER:(D) is the correct answer.See MPEP§§ 706.07(h), underthe heading“X.AfterAppeal ButBefore DecisionByBoard,”and1215.01.
As explainedinMPEP§ 1215.01, “The filingof anRCE will be treatedasa withdrawal of the appeal bythe applicant,regardlessof whetherthe
RCE includesthe appropriate feeora submission.”Thus,the filingof the RCE withoutthe fee resultsinthe withdrawal of the appeal inthis
applicationandpassage of the applicationtoissue withthe allowedclaims6-10 afterthe cancellationof bothrejectedclaims1-3and claims4
and 5 whichare allowable exceptfortheirdependencyfromrejectedclaim1(A) isincorrect.AsalsoexplainedinMPEP§ 1215.01, althoughan
applicationunderappeal having noallowedclaimswillbe consideredabandonedbythe filingof animproperRCE,anapplicationhavingallowed
claimswill be passedtoissue withthe allowedclaims.Uponwithdrawal of appeal,claimswhichare allowable exceptfortheirdependencyfrom
rejectedclaimswillbe treatedasif theywere rejected.See MPEP§ 1215.01. All rejectedclaims,suchasclaims1-3,and claimswhichare
allowable exceptfortheirdependencyfromrejectedclaims,suchasclaims4 and5, will be canceled.(B) isincorrect.AsexplainedinMPEP§
706.07(h), underthe heading“AfterAppealButBefore DecisionByThe Board,”proceedingsasto the rejectedclaimsare terminatedandthe
applicationispassedtoissue withthe allowedclaims.MPEP§ 1215.01 explainsthatthe filingof anRCE will be treatedasa withdrawal of the
appeal bythe applicant,regardlessof whetherthe RCEincludesthe appropriate fee ora submission.(C) isincorrectforthe reasonsexplainedfor
(A),andbecause claims4 and 5 will be canceled.(E) isincorrect.The RCE,whichwas filedwithoutthe fee,isimproper.Thus,asexplainedin
MPEP § 706.07(h),. underthe heading,“AfterAppealButBefore DecisionByThe Board,” proceedingsastothe rejectedclaims are terminated
and the applicationispassedtoissue withthe allowedclaims.MPEP§ 1215.01 explainsthatthe filingof anRCE will be treatedasa withdrawal
of the appeal bythe applicant,regardlessof whetherthe RCEincludesthe appropriatefee orasubmission.

38. 37. ANSWER:(E) is the correct answer.35 U.S.C.§ 102(b); 37 CFR § 1.111(b); MPEP §§ 706.02(b), 2131 and 2131.03. As statedinMPEP 2131,
underthe heading“To Anticipate A Claim,The ReferenceMustTeachEvery ElementOf The Claim,”“A claimisanticipatedonly if eachandevery
elementassetforthinthe claimis found,eitherexpresslyorinherentlydescribed,inasingle priorart reference.”Verdegaal Bros.v.UnionOil
Co. of California,814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.Cir.1987). MPEP 2131.03, underthe heading,“PriorArtWhichTeachesA Range
Within,Overlapping,OrTouchingThe ClaimedRange AnticipatesIf The PriorArtRange DisclosesThe ClaimedRange With‘Sufficient
Specificity.’”states“Whenthe priorartdisclosesarange whichtouches,overlapsoris withinthe claimedrange,butnospecificexamplesfalling
withinthe claimedrange are disclosed,acase by case determinationmustbe made astoanticipation.Inordertoanticipate the claims,the
claimedsubjectmattermustbe disclosedinthe referencewith‘sufficientspecificitytoconstitute ananticipationunderthe statute.’”A claim
containingalimitationthatthe gritparticle size is5-7 micronswouldnotbe anticipatedbythe appliedreference,because the appliedreference
disclosesadifferentgritparticle size well outsidethatrange.(A) isincorrect.MPEP§ 2123(8th Ed.).Patentsare relevantaspriorart for all they
containand are notlimitedtotheirpreferredembodiments.See Inre Heck,699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed.Cir.1983) and
Merck & Co. v. BiocraftLaboratories,874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed.Cir.1989), cert.denied,493 U.S. 975 (1989). (B) isincorrect.See MPEP
§ 2131.04. Evidence of secondaryconsiderationssuchasunexpectedresultsisirrelevant to35 U.S.C.§ 102 rejectionsandthuscannotovercome
a rejectionsobased.See Inre Wiggins,488 F.2d 538, 543,179 USPQ 421, 425 (CCPA 1973). (C) is incorrect.See MPEP§ 715, underthe heading
“SituationsWhere 37 CFR 1.131 AffidavitsorDeclarations Are Inappropriate.”Anaffidavitordeclarationunder37CFR § 1.131 is inappropriate
where the reference publicationdate ismore than1 yearprior to applicant’seffective filingdate.Suchareference isa“statutorybar” under35
U.S.C.§ 102(b) as referencedin37 CFR § 1.131(a)(2). (D) is alsoincorrect.See MPEP§ 2131.05. Argumentsthatthe allegedanticipatorypriorart
is“nonanalogousart” are not “germane”to a rejectionunder35 U.S.C.§ 102. TwinDisc,Inc. v. UnitedStates,231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl.Ct.1986)
(quotingInre Self,671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982).

39. 38. ANSWER:(D) is the mostcorrect answer.37 CFR § 1.197(c); MPEP § 1214.06. This case is specificallysetforthinMPEP§ 1214.06 underthe
heading“ClaimsStandAllowed.”Answers(A),(B) and(C) applyonlyif noclaimsstandallowedinthe application.Theyare incorrectbecause the
facts state that claim3 wasallowed.See MPEP§ 1214.06, underthe heading“NoClaimsStandAllowed.”(B) isincorrect.See MPEP§ 1214.06
underthe heading“ClaimsStandAllowed.”Where one ormore otherclaimsstandallowed,the examinerisnotauthorizedtoconvertto
independentformadependentclaimthathasbeenobjectedto(butnotallowedorrejected) basedonitsdependencytoa rejectedclaim.(C) is
incorrect.See MPEP § 1214.06 underthe heading“ClaimsStandAllowed.”Where one ormore otherclaimsstandallowed,the examinerisnot
authorizedtoprovide appellantwithtimetorewrite adependentclaimintoindependentformwhere the dependentclaimwasobjectedto(but
not allowedorrejected)basedonitsdependencytoarejectedclaim.

40. 39. CREDIT GIVEN FOR ALL ANSWERS.

41. 40. ANSWER:(E) is the most correctanswer.Asset forthinMPEP § 2111.03 states“[t]he transitionalterm‘comprising’[Answer(A)],whichis
synonymouswith‘including’[Answer(D)],‘containing’[Answer(B)],or‘characterizedby’[Answer(C)],isinclusive oropen-endedanddoesnot
exclude additional,unrecitedelementsormethodsteps.Since Answers(A),(B),(C) and(D) are all open-endedtransitional phrasestheyare
incorrectanswers.

42. 41. ANSWER:The correctansweris (E).MPEP § 608.01(n), underthe heading“B.Unacceptable Multiple DependentClaimWording.”Multiple
dependentclaimsinproperformdependonprecedingclaimsandrefertothe claimsfromwhichtheydependinthe alternative only.Answer(A)
isincorrect.See MPEP § 608.01(n), underthe heading“B.Unacceptable Multiple DependentClaimWording,”andsubheading“1. ClaimDoes
NotReferBack In the Alternative Only,”secondexample.A propermultipledependentclaimmustreferbackinthe alternativeonly.Answer (B)
isincorrect.See MPEP § 608.01(n), underthe heading“B.Unacceptable Multiple DependentClaimWording,”andsubheading“1. ClaimDoes
NotReferBack In the Alternative Only,”fifthexample.A propermultiple dependentclaimrefersbackinthe alternative only.Answer(C) is
incorrect.Answer(C) reproducesthe exampleinMPEP§ 608.01(n), underthe heading“B.Unacceptable Multiple DependentClaimWording,”
and subheading“3.ReferencestoTwoSetsof ClaimstoDifferentFeatures.”A propermultipledependentclaimrefersinthe alternative toonly
one setof claims.Answer(D) isincorrect.See MPEP§ 608.01(n), underthe heading“B.Unacceptable Multiple DependentClaimWording,”and
subheading“2.ClaimDoesNotRefertoa PrecedingClaim,”secondexample.A propermultiple dependentclaimdependsonlyfrompreceding
claims.

43. 42. ANSWER:(E) is the most correctanswer.MPEP § 1002.02(c) identifiesamongthe matterspetitionabletoanddecidedbythe Technology
CenterDirectors“Petitionsfromafinal decisionof examinerrequiringrestrictioninpatentapplications,37CFR 1.144, MPEP § 818.03(c).” Hence
(A),and(C),whichprovide forreviewbefore the Boardof PatentAppealsandInterferencesare clearlyerroneous.Since the restriction
requirementisnotyet“final”noreviewispossible atthisjuncture.Answers(A),(B),(C),and(D) are alsoincorrectbecause noclaimis under
rejectionhence noappeal ispossible.See MPEP§ 1205, whichprovidesthatunder37 CFR 1.191(a), an applicantfora patent dissatisfiedwith
the primaryexaminer’sdecisioninthe secondorfinal rejectionof hisorherclaimsmayappeal to the Board for reviewof the examiner’s
rejectionbyfilinganotice of appeal andthe requiredfee setforthin37 CFR 1.17(b) withinthe time periodprovidedunder 37 CFR 1.134.and
1.136. A notice of appeal may be filedafteranyof the claimshas beentwice rejected,regardlessof whetherthe claim(s)has/have beenfinally
rejected.The limitationof “twice orfinally...rejected”doesnothave tobe relatedtoa particularapplication.Forexample,if anyclaimwas
rejectedinaparent application,andthe claim isagainrejectedinacontinuingapplication,thenapplicantwill be entitledtofile anappeal inthe
continuingapplication,evenif the claimwasrejectedonlyonce inthe continuingapplication.

44. 43. ANSWER:The answeris(C).See 37 CFR § 1.75(c); MPEP 608.01(n). Rule 1.75(c) providesthat“[o]ne ormore claimsmaybe presentedin
dependentform,referringbacktoand furtherlimitinganotherclaimorclaimsinthe same application.”See alsoMPEP§ 608.01(n), underthe
heading“IIIInfringementTest,”secondparagraph,whereinitstates,“[t]he testforaproperdependentclaimunderthe fourthparagraphof 35
U.S.C.112 iswhetherthe dependentclaimincludeseverylimitationof the claimfromwhichitdepends.”Foranswer(A),see MPEP§ 608.01(n),
underthe heading“IIIInfringementTest,”secondparagraph,whereinitstates,“[t]hetestisnotone of whetherthe claims differinscope.”For
answer(B),see MPEP§ 608.01(n), underthe heading“IIIInfringementTest,”secondparagraph,whereinitstates,“[a] dependentclaimdoesnot
lack compliance with35U.S.C. 112, fourthparagraph,simplybecause there isaquestionasto(1) the significance of the furtherlimitationadded
by the dependentclaim.”Foranswers(D) and(E),see MPEP § 608.01 (n),underthe heading“IIIInfringementTest,”fifthparagraph,whereinit
states,“[t]he factthat a dependentclaimwhichisotherwise propermightrelatetoa separate inventionwhichwouldrequire aseparate search
or be separatelyclassifiedfromthe claimonwhichitdependswouldnotrenderitanimproperdependentclaim,althoughitmightresultina
requirementforrestriction.”

45. 44. ANSWER:(A) isthe most correct answer.See 35 U.S.C.122(b)(2)(B)(iii);37CFR § 1.213; MPEP § 901.03 for informationonnonpublication
requests.See 37CFR § 1.137(f); MPEP § 711.03(c), underthe heading“3.AbandonmentforFailure toNotifythe Office of aForeignFilingAfter
Submissionof aNon-PublicationRequest.”(B) isincorrect.The notice of foreignfilingcan be filedaslate as 45 daysafterthe foreignfilingbefore
the U.S. applicationbecomesabandoned.(C) isincorrect.See MPEP§ 608.04(a). The improvementswouldconstitutenewmatter andnew
mattercannot be addedto the disclosure of anapplicationafterthe filingdate of the application.(D) isnotcorrect.The applicantisrequiredto
provide notice of foreignfiling,notmerelyrescindthe nonpublicationrequestwithinthe appropriate time.(E) isnotcorrect.The applicantwas
requiredtoprovide notice of foreignfilingwithin45days of filinginJapan,andtwomonthshave passed.Asa result,apetitiontorevive under
37 CFR § 1.137(b) isrequiredforexaminationtocontinue.Alsosee37CFR § 1.137(f).

46. 45. ANSWER:(E) is the most correctanswer.Asset forthinMPEP § 2127, underthe heading“AbandonedApplications,IncludingProvisional
Applications,”andsubheading,“AbandonedApplicationsDisclosedtothe PublicCanBe Usedas Prior Art,”states“the subject matterof an
abandonedapplication,includingbothprovisional andnonprovisionalapplications,referredtoina priorart U.S. patentmay be reliedonina 35
U.S.C.102(e) rejectionbasedonthatpatentif the disclosure of the abandonedapplicationisactuallyincludedorincorporatedbyreference in
the patent.Compare Inre Lund,376 F.2d 982, 991, 153 USPQ 625, 633 (CCPA 1967) (The court reversedarejectionoverapatentwhichwasa
continuation-in-partof anabandonedapplication.Applicant’sfilingdate precededthe issue date of the patentreference.The abandoned
applicationcontainedsubjectmatterwhichwasessentialtothe rejectionbutwhichwasnotcarriedoverintothe continuation-in-part.The court
heldthatthe subjectmatterof the abandonedapplicationwasnotavailable tothe publicasof eitherthe parent’sorthe child’sfilingdatesand
thuscouldnot be reliedoninthe 102(e) rejection.).”(A) isincorrectsince anabandonedpatentapplicationmaybecomeevidence of priorart.
Answers(B),(C) and(D) are incorrectdue to the use of the word“only”.Answer(E) doesnotinclude the term“only”.Inaddition,Answer(C) and
(D) are alsoincorrectdue to the inclusionof the phrase “as of itsfilingdate”.Assetforthabove,“Anabandonedpatentapplicationbecomes
available aspriorart onlyas of the date the publicgainsaccessto it.See 37 CFR 1.14(e)(2).”

47. 46. ANSWER:The correctansweris (C).The internal reportwasintendedtobe confidential andtherefore isnota“printedpublication”under35
U.S.C.§ 102(b). See MPEP § 2128.01, underthe heading“Internal DocumentsIntendedToBe Confidential Are Not‘PrintedPublications,”citing
In re George,, 2 USPQ2d 1880 (Bd.Pat. App.& Int.1987) states“Researchreportsdisseminatedin-house toonlythose persons whounderstood
the policyof confidentialityregardingsuchreportsare notprintedpublicationseventhoughthe policywasnotspecifically statedinwriting.”
Answer(A) isincorrect.Anorallypresentedpapercanbe a “printedpublication”if copiesare availablewithoutrestriction.The paperisa
“printedpublication”under35 U.S.C.§ 102(b). See MPEP§ 2128.01. Answer(B) isincorrect.The thesisisa “printedpublication”under35U.S.C.
§ 102(b). See MPEP§ 2128.01. Answer(D) isincorrect.Anelectronicpublicationdisclosedonthe Internetisconsideredtobe publiclyavailable
as of the date the itemwas posted.The referenceisa“printedpublication”under35 U.S.C.§ 102(b). See MPEP § 2128. Answer(E) isincorrect.
There isno needtoprove that anyone actuallylookedata document.The manual isa “printedpublication”under35U.S.C.§ 102(b). See MPEP
§ 2128.

48. 47. ANSWER:(B) is the mostproperanswer.MPEP § 2111, underthe heading“ClaimsMustBe GivenTheirBroadestReasonable Interpretation,”
states,inreference toInre Prater,415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969): “The court explainedthat‘readingaclaimin
lightof the specification,[’] totherebyinterpretlimitationsexplicitlyrecitedinthe claim,isaquite differentthingfrom‘readinglimitationsof the
specificationintoaclaim,’totherebynarrowthe scope of the claimbyimplicitlyaddingdisclosed[sic,disclosed] limitationswhichhave no
expressbasisinthe claim.”Answer(A) isanimproperresponse tothe questionbecauseitisacorrect statementof claiminterpretationduring
patentprosecution.AspointedoutinMPEP § 2111.01, the court inIn re Marosi,710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed.Cir.1983) (quoting
In re Okuzawa,537 F.2d545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)), states:“It iswell settledthat‘claimsare notto be read ina vacuum and
limitationsthereinare tobe interpretedinlightof the specificationingivingthemtheir“broadestreasonable interpretation.”’”Answer(C) isan
improperresponse tothe questionbecause itisacorrect statementof claiminterpretationduringpatentprosecution.MPEP§ 2111.01, under
the heading“PlainMeaningRefersToThe MeaningGiventoThe TermBy Those Of OrdinarySkill InThe Art,” statesthat“[w]hennotdefinedby
applicantinthe specification,the wordsof aclaimmust be giventheirplainmeaning.”Answer(D) isanimproperresponse tothe question
because itisa correct statementof claiminterpretationduringpatentprosecution.MPEP§2111.01 statesthat itis onlywhenthe specification
providesadefinitionfortermsappearinginthe claimscanthe specificationbe usedtointerpretthe claimlanguage.Answer (E) isanimproper
response tothe questionbecause itisacorrect statementof claiminterpretationduringpatentprosecution.See MPEP§2111.01, underthe
heading“PlainMeaningRefersToThe MeaningGivento The Term By Those Of OrdinarySkill InThe Art,” states,inreliance uponInre
Donaldson,16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed.Cir.1994), that there is“one exception,andthatiswhenanelementisclaimed
usinglanguage fallingunderthe scope of 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (oftenbroadlyreferredtoas meansor stepplusfunctionlanguage).In
that case,the specificationmustbe consultedtodetermine the structure,material,oractscorrespondingtothe functionrecitedinthe claim.”

49. 48. ANSWER:(C) isthe mostcorrect answer.35 U.S.C.§ 102(b); MPEP § 2133.03(b). MPEP § 2133.03(b), underthe heading“I.The MeaningOf
“Sale,”andsubheading“D.A Sale of RightsIs Nota Sale of the InventionandWill NotinItself Bara Patent,”states“‘[a]nassignmentorsale of
the rights,such as patentrights,inthe inventionisnotasale of ‘the invention’withinthe meaningof section102(b).’”The sale mustinvolve the
deliveryof the physical inventionitself.MoleculonResearchCorp.v.CBS,Inc.,793 F.2d 1261, 1265, 229 USPQ 805, 809 (Fed.Cir.1986).” (A) is
incorrect.Althoughreexaminations are limitedtopriorart patentsandprintedpublications,thatlimitationisnotpresentinoriginal prosecution.
MPEP § 2133.03(b) states“An impermissible salehasoccurredif there wasa definite sale,oroffertosell,more than1 year before the effective
filingdate of the U.S.applicationandthe subjectmatterof the sale,or offertosell,fullyanticipatedthe claimedinventionorwouldhave
renderedthe claimedinventionobviousbyitsadditiontothe priorart. FeragAG v.Quipp,Inc.,45 F.3d 1562, 1565, 33 USPQ2d 1512, 1514 (Fed.
Cir.1995).” (B) and (D) are incorrect.There isnorequirementthaton-sale activitybe public.See MPEP§ 2133.03(b), underthe heading“III.Sale
By Inventor,Assignee OrOthersAssociatedWithThe InventorInThe Course Of Business,”andsubheading“A.Sale ActivityNeedNotBe Public.”
(E) is wrongat leastbecause anon-sale bardoesnot require anactual sale.A bar can alsobe basedonan offerto sell.MPEP§ 2133.03(b), under
the heading“II.OffersForSale.”

50. 49. ANSWER:(D) is the correct answer.See MPEP§ 2173.05(c), underthe heading“Open-EndedNumerical Ranges.”Paraphrasingthe
explanationtherein,whenanindependentclaimrecitesacompositioncomprising“atleast20% iron”and a dependentclaimsetsforthspecific
amountsof non-ironingredientswhichaddupto100%, apparentlytothe exclusionof iron,anambiguityiscreatedwithregardtothe “at least”
limitationunlessthe percentagesof the non-ironingredientsare basedonthe weightof the non-ironingredients.Onthe otherhand,a
compositionclaimedtohave a theoretical contentgreaterthan100% (i.e.,20-80% of iron,20-80% of gallium,and1-25% of copper) isnot
necessarilyindefinitesimplybecause the claimsmaybe readintheoryto include compositionsthatare impossibleinfactto formulate.Here,
because the inventionisanon-theoretical alloy,the sumof the claimedconstituentscannotexceed100%unlessthe percentage isbasedon
weight.In(D),the sumof elements(B) and(C) is 81% by volume,leavingonly19%foriron.Claim1, however,requires“atleast20% iron,”
renderingClaim2ambiguousasto the percentage of elementA.(A) isincorrect.The sumof galliumandcoppercomponentsis 80%,leavinga
possible 20%of the compositionforelementiron.Claim1requires“atleast20% iron,”whichincludes20%iron.Therefore,the sumof iron,
galliumandcoppercomponentsinClaim2is 100%. (B) isincorrect.“At least20% iron”includes21% iron,“at least10% galliumincludes11%
gallium,and“at least10% copperincludes10.01% copper.(C) isincorrect.“At least20% iron”includes20%iron,“at least 10% galliumincludes
10% gallium,and“atleast10% copper”includes10%copper.(E) is incorrectbecause Claim1usesthe opentransitionphrase “comprising,”
whichpermitsadditionalelementstobe addedtothe composition.Nothinginthe problemindicatesthatanadditionalcomponent,silver,
cannot be addedto the composition.

51. 50. ANSWER:(D) is the mostcorrect answer.37 CFR § 1.75; MPEP § 608.01(n). As explainedinMPEP§ 608.01(n), underthe heading“Multiple
DependentClaims,”subheading“Acceptable Multiple DependentClaimWording”the multipledependentclaimwordingof newclaims16-27 is
proper.See,forexample,“any one of the precedingclaims,”and“inanyof claims1-3 or 7-9.” 37 CFR § 1.75(c) states“For fee calculation
purposesunder§ 1.16, a multiple dependentclaimwillbe consideredtobe thatnumberof claimsto whichdirectreferenceis made therein.”
Therefore,claims16-27wouldeachhave a claimvalue of elevenandthe total numberof claimsforfee calculationisone hundredforty-seven
(12 x 11 = 132 + 15 = 147). Answers(A) and(B) are incorrectbecause theyare not the correct total.Answer(C) isincorrectbecause the multiple
dependentclaimshave notbeencalculatedinaccordance with37 CFR§ 1.75. Answer(E) isincorrectbecause the questionasks forthe total
afterthe amendmentaddingclaims16-27 has beenentered.

52. April 2003 Exam Afternoon Session

53. 1. ANSWER: (A) isthe mostcorrect answer.35 U.S.C.§ 111; 37 CFR § 1.53; MPEP § 601.01. As providedinMPEP§ 601.01(a), the filingfee foran
applicationfiledunder37 CFR 1.53(b) can be submittedafterthe filingdate.(B),(C),(D) and(E) are incorrect.37 CFR § 53(b); MPEP § 601.01. 37
CFR § 1.53(b) providesthata filingdate isgrantedonthe date on whicha specificationasprescribedby35 U.S.C.§ 112 containingadescription
pursuantto 37 CFR § 1.71 and at leastone claimpursuantto 37 CFR § 1.75, and any drawingrequiredby37 CFR § 1.81(a) are filedinthe Office.
Thus,(B),(C),(D) and (E) are neededtoobtainafilingdate.

54. 2. ANSWER: (D) isthe mostcorrect answer.MPEP§§ 1403 and 1412.03, underthe heading“WhenA BroadenedClaimCanBe Presented.”A
broadeningreissueclaimmustbe filedwithinthe twoyearsfromthe grant of the original patent.(D) isthe mostcorrectand the examiner
shouldexaminethe case asany otherapplicationandaddressappropriate issuesconcerningreissue examination.SeeSwitzerv.Sockman,333
F.2d 935, 142 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1964) (a similarrule ininterferences).Since applicantfiledthe amendmentbyExpressMail,the amendmentis
treatedas beingfiledwiththe USPTOonthe date of depositwiththe US Postal Service.Therefore,(A),(B) and(C) are incorrectanswers.A
reissue applicationcanbe granteda filingdate withoutanoathor declaration,orwithoutthe filingfee beingpresent.See 37CFR § 1.53(f).
Applicantwill be givenaperiodof time toprovide the missingpartsandto paythe surcharge under37 CFR § 1.16(e).See MPEP § 1410.01.
Choice (E) isnot correct since the mere deletionof anelementof aclaimdoesnotautomaticallyraise agroundof rejection basedonthe
recapture doctrine.See MPEP§ 1412.02.

55. 3. ANSWER: (C) iscorrect. MPEP § 2113, underthe heading“Once A ProductAppearingToBe SubstantiallyIdentical IsFoundAndA 35 U.S.C.
102/103 RejectionMade,The BurdenShiftsToThe ApplicantToShowAnUnobviousDifference,”states“[o]nce the examinerprovidesa
rationale tendingtoshowthatthe claimedproductappearstobe the same or similartothat of the priorart, althoughproducedbya different
process,the burdenshiftstoapplicanttocome forwardwithevidence establishinganunobviousdifference betweenthe claimedproductand
the prior art product.In re Marosi,710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed.Cir.1983).” (A) isincorrectbecause the patentabilityof product-
by-processclaimsisbasedonthe productitself.See Inre Thorpe,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed.Cir.1985). Where the endproductsare the same,the
processof makinglimitationsdonothave tobe givenweightinex parte examination.SeeAtlanticThermoplasticsCo.v.Faytex Corp.,23
USPQ2d 1481, 1490-91 (Fed.Cir.1992) (product-by-processclaimsare treateddifferentlyforpatentabilitypurposesduringex parte examination
inthe USPTO thanfor infringementandvaliditypurposesduringlitigation).(B) isincorrectbecause "[o]nce the Examinerprovidesarationale
tendingtoshow that the claimedproductappearstobe the same or similartothat of the priorart, althoughproducedbya differentprocess,
the burdenshiftstoapplicanttocome forwardwithevidence establishinganunobviousdifference betweenthe claimedproduct andthe prior
art product."MPEP § 2113. "To the extentthatthe processlimitationsdistinguishthe productsoverthe priorart,theymust be giventhe same
considerationastraditional productcharacteristics."Inre Hallman,210 USPQ 609, 611 (CCPA 1981). Thus,(C) is correctbecause applicantcan
showby factual argumentsand/ordeclarationsoraffidavitsunder37CFR § 1.132 thatthe methodof makingproducesadifferentproductand
that the differencesare unobvious.(D) isincorrectbecause itdoesnot tendtoshowthat the productsare different.(E) isincorrectbecause the
inventor'sawarenessof priorart isof no consequencetopatentability.

56. 4. ANSWER: (C) isthe correct answer.37 CFR §§ 1.6(d)(3) and1.8(a)(2)(i)(d);MPEP§ 502 (reproducingRule 1.6(d)(3));MPEP§ 512 (reproducing
Rule 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d));andMPEP§1817.01. Asstatedin MPEP § 1817.01, “[a]ll designationsmustbe made inthe international applicationonfiling;
none maybe addedlater.”The applicationwillnotbe accordedan internationalfilingdate since the practitionerhastriedtocure the failure to
designate atleastone contractingState byfilingapaperusingfacsimile whichisnotpermittedaccordingto37 CFR§§ 1.6(d)(3) and
1.8(a)(2)(i)(d).(A)iswrongbecause applicanthasfailedtocomplywithArticle 11(1)(iii)(b) onsuchdate.See MPEP§ 1810 (reproducingPCT
Article 11(1)(iii)(b).(B) iswrongbecause accordingto37 CFR1.6(d)(3) and 37 CFR 1.8 (a)(2)(i)(d),applicantcannotfile aninternational
applicationby facsimile.SeeMPEP§ 502 (reproducing37CFR § 1.6(d)(3));MPEP§ 512 (reproducing37CFR § 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d)).Since no
designationswere includedonfiling,the applicationpaperscannotbe accordedaninternational filingdate.See PCTArticle 11(1)(iii)(b).
Applicantcannotcorrectthisby filingthe designationsheetbyfacsimile.See MPEP§ 502 (reproducingRule 1.6(d)(3));MPEP § 512 (reproducing
Rule 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d)).(D) iswrongbecause accordingtoPCTRule 80.5, whena response isdue ona day where the receivingOffice isnotopenfor
business,applicanthasuntil the nextbusinessday.See AppendixTof the MPEP. (E) isincorrectbecause (C) iscorrect.

57. 5. ANSWER: (C) isthe most correct answer.MPEP§ 2163, underthe heading“GENERALPRINCIPLESGOVERNINGCOMPLIANCEWITHTHE
"WRITTEN DESCRIPTION"REQUIREMENT FOR APPLICATIONS,”andsubheading“NeworAmendedClaims,”states“A claimthatomitsan element
whichapplicantdescribesasanessential orcritical feature of the inventionoriginallydiscloseddoesnotcomplywiththe writtendescription
requirement.See GentryGallery,134 F.3d at 1480, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; In re Sus,306 F.2d494, 504, 134 USPQ 301, 309 (CCPA 1962) (‘[O]ne
skilledinthisartwouldnotbe taught bythe writtendescriptionof the inventioninthe specificationthatany'aryl orsubstitutedaryl radical'
wouldbe suitable forthe purposesof the inventionbutratherthatonlycertain aryl radicalsand certainspecificallysubstitutedaryl radicals[i.e.,
aryl azides] wouldbe suitableforsuchpurposes.’).”(A),(B),(D) and(E) are incorrect.Each listsa properwayto demonstrate satisfactionof the
writtendescriptionrequirement.MPEP§2163.02, underthe heading“STANDARDFORDETERMININGCOMPLIANCEWITH THE WRITTEN
DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT,” providesthatthe writtendescriptionrequirementismet“whenthe specificationconveyswithreasonable clarity
to those skilledinthe artthat,as of the filingdate sought,applicantwasinpossessionof the inventionasnowclaimed.See,e.g.,Vas-Cath,Inc.
v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed.Cir.1991).” Possessionmaybe showninavarietyof ways“including
descriptionof anactual reductiontopractice,or by showingthatthe inventionwas‘readyforpatenting’suchasby the disclosure of drawingsor
structural chemical formulasthatshowthatthe inventionwascomplete,orbydescribingdistinguishingidentifyingcharacteristicssufficientto
showthat the applicantwasinpossessionof the claimedinvention.See,e.g.,Pfaff v.WellsElectronics,Inc.,525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct.304, 312,
48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Regentsof the Universityof Californiav.Eli Lilly,119 F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1405 (Fed.Cir.1997);
Amgen,Inc.v.Chugai Pharmaceutical,927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed.Cir.1991).”

58. 6. ANSWER: (D) isthe mostcorrect answer.37 CFR § 1.56; MPEP § 2001.05. 37 CFR§ 1.56(a) setsforth a dutyto disclose informationthatis
material topatentability.MPEP§ 2001.05 statesthat“informationisnotmaterial unlessiscomeswithinthe definitionof 37 CFR 1.56(b)(1) or
(b)(2).If informationisnotmaterial,thereisnodutyto disclose the informationtothe Office.”The informationthatmoondustwasnever
actuallyusedisnotmaterial as definedunder37 CFR § 1.56(b)(1) or (2) whichstate that informationismaterial if “(b)(1) Itestablishes,byitself
or in combinationwithotherinformation,aprimafacie case of unpatentabilityof aclaim;or (2) It refutes,orisinconsistentwith,apositionthe
applicanttakesin:(i) Opposinganargumentof unpatentabilityreliedonbythe Office or,(ii) Assertinganargument of patentability.”Thatthe
use of the moondustas part of an erasure formulationwasonlytheorizedandnotactuallyusedisacceptable asisanexample formakingit.
MPEP § 608.01(p), II, underthe heading“SimulatedorPredictedTestResultsOrPropheticExamples,”statesthat“[s]imulatedorpredictedtest
resultsandprophetical examples(paperexamples) are permittedinpatentapplications....Paperexamplesdescribethe mannerandprocessof
makingan embodimentof the inventionwhichhasnotactuallybeenconducted.”Care,however,mustbe takennottostate that an experiment
was actuallyrunor conductedwhenitwasnot and that “[n]oresultsshouldbe presentedasactual resultsunlesstheyhave actuallybeen
achieved.”MPEP§ 2004, item8. (A) isincorrect.37 CFR § 1.56(a) requiresthatindividualsassociatedwiththe filingandprosecutionof apatent
applicationhave adutyto disclose informationtothe Office.37CFR § 1.56(c) defineswhichindividualsare associatedwith the filingand
prosecutionof apatentapplicationandthat“(c) Individualsassociatedwiththe filingorprosecutionof apatentapplication withinthe meaning
of thissectionare:(1) Each inventornamedinthe application;(2) Eachattorneyor agentwho preparesorprosecutesthe application;and(3)
Everyotherpersonwhois substantivelyinvolvedinthe preparationorprosecutionof the applicationandwhoisassociatedwiththe inventor,
withthe assignee orwithanyone towhomthere isan obligationtoassignthe application.”Pointispartof the Salesdepartmentandnofacts
were presentedthatsubstantivelyinvolvedhiminthe preparationorprosecutionof the application.Additionally,asnotedinthe explanation
relatinganswerto(D),the informationgiventoPointbyTipwas notmaterial information.(B) isincorrect.While Tipwouldbe anindividual
identifiedunder37 CFR§ 1.56(c), there isno material informationtobe disclosedasnotedinthe explanationto(D).(C) isincorrect.Asnotedin
the explanationrelatingto(D),the informationisnotmaterial.Additionally,asnotedinthe explanationtoanswer(A),Pointisnotan individual
definedby37 CFR 1.56(c) as owinga duty.(E) is incorrect.Asthere isno requirementthatitbe explicitlystatedthataninventionhasorhas not
beenactuallyconducted,asnotedinthe explanationof (D),the prosecutionneednotbe continuedforthe purpose of supplyinganinformation
disclosure statementregardingthe developmentof the moonrock erasure formulation.

59. 7. ANSWER: (A) isthe bestanswer.35 U.S.C.§ 102; MPEP § 2131.01, underthe heading“ExtraReference orEvidence CanBe UsedTo Showan
InherentCharacteristicof the ThingTaught bythe PrimaryReference,”states“thataslongas there isevidence of recordestablishinginherency,
failure of those skilledinthe artto contemporaneouslyrecognizeaninherentproperty,functionoringredientof apriorart reference doesnot
preclude afindingof anticipation.AtlasPowderCo.v.IRECO,Inc.,190 F.3d 1342, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1948 (Fed.Cir.1999) (Twopriorart
referencesdisclosedblastingcompositionscontainingwater-inoilemulsionswithidentical ingredientstothose claimed,inoverlappingranges
withthe claimedcomposition.The onlyelement of the claimsarguablynotpresentinthe priorart compositionswas"sufficientaeration...
entrappedtoenhance sensitivitytoasubstantial degree."The Federal Circuitfoundthatthe emulsionsdescribedinbothreferenceswould
inevitablyandinherentlyhave "sufficientaeration"tosensitize the compoundinthe claimedrangesbasedonthe evidence of record(including
testdata and experttestimony).(B) isincorrect.The priorart reference,toanticipate the claimedinvention,isnotrequiredtorecognizean
inherentproperty.SeeMPEP§ 2131.01. (C) isincorrect.The prior art reference,toanticipate the claimedinvention,isnot requiredtorecognize
an inherentfunctionof oxygen.See MPEP§2131.01. (D) isincorrect.The priorart reference, toanticipate the claimedinvention,isnotrequired
to recognize aninherentingredient,oxygen.See MPEP§ 2131.01. (E) is incorrectbecause (B),(C),and(D) are incorrect,as explainedabove.

60. 8. ANSWER: (E) isthe mostcorrect, because statements(2) and(3) are true.The entire periodforwhichdiligence isrequiredmustbe accounted
for.MPEP § 2138.06, underthe heading“The Entire PeriodDuringWhichDiligence IsRequiredMustBe AccountedForBy Either Affirmative Acts
Or Acceptable Excuses,”states“[a]napplicantmustaccountforthe entire periodduringwhichdiligence isrequired.Gouldv.Schawlow,363
F.2d 908, 919, 150 USPQ 634, 643 (CCPA 1966) (Merelystatingthatthere were noweeksormonthsthatthe inventionwasnotworkedonisnot
enough.).”MPEP§ 2138.06, underthe heading“WorkReliedUponToShowReasonable Diligence MustBe DirectlyRelatedToThe ReductionTo
Practice,”states“[t]he workreliedupontoshowreasonablediligence mustbe directlyrelatedtothe reductiontopractice of the inventionin
issue.Naberv.Cricchi,567 F.2d382, 384, 196 USPQ 294, 296 (CCPA 1977), cert. denied,439U.S. 826 (1978). ‘U]ndersome circumstancesan
inventorshouldalsobe able torelyonworkon closelyrelatedinventionsassupportfordiligencetowardthe reductiontopractice onan
inventioninissue.’”(A) isincorrectbecause statement(1) isnottrue – an inventororhisattorneyneednotdropall otherworkto establish
reasonable diligence.Emeryv.Ronden,188USPQ 264, 268 (Bd.Pat. Inter.1974); MPEP § 2138.06. (B) is incorrectbecause itdoesnotinclude
true statement(3).(C) isincorrectbecause itdoesnotinclude true statement(2).(D) isincorrectbecause itincludesfalse statement(1).

61. 9. CREDIT GIVEN FOR ALL ANSWERS.

62. 10. ANSWER:(E) is the most correctanswer.37 CFR § 1.99; MPEP § 610. Rule 1.99 providesthata thirdparty maysubmitina published
applicationaforeign-languagepublicationandanEnglishlanguage translationof pertinentportionsof the publication. The submissionmust
“identifythe applicationtowhichitisdirectedbyapplicationnumber,”.. “include the fee setforthin§ 1.17(p);” include “alistof the patentsor
publicationssubmittedforconsiderationbythe Office,includingthe date of publicationof eachpatentorpublication;”... a “ copy of eachlisted
patentor publicationinwrittenformorat leastthe pertinentportions;”andan“Englishlanguage translationof all the necessaryandpertinent
parts of any non-Englishlanguagepatentorpublicationinwrittenformreliedupon.”(A) isincorrect.37 CFR § 1.99 doesnot authorize athird-
party submissionof materialsorthingsotherthanpatentsorpublications.See 37CFR § 1.99; MPEP § 610. Thus,submissionof avideotape
under§1.99 isnot authorized.(B) isincorrect.A third-partysubmissionunder37 CFR 1.99 may not include explanations.See 37CFR § 1.99(d);
MPEP § 610. (C) is incorrect.A third-partysubmissionunder37 CFR 1.99 may not include markingsorhighlightsonthe publications.See 37CFR
§ 1.99(d);MPEP § 610. (D) isincorrectbecause a protestcannotbe filedinapublishedapplication.See37 CFR§ 1.291(a)(1); MPEP 1901.06.

63. 11. ANSWER:(E) is the most correctanswer.35 U.S.C.§ 251; 37 CFR § 1.53(f); MPEP § 1403. Filingabroadenedreissue applicationwithatleast
one broadeningclaimpriortothe expirationof the two-yeartime periodsetinthe statute satisfiesthe diligenceprovisionsof 35 U.S.C.§ 251.
The executedreissueoath/declarationandthe filingfee maybe filedatalatertime.AccordingtoMPEP § 1403, a reissue applicationcanbe
granteda filingdate withoutanoathor declaration,orwithoutthe filingfeebeingpresent.See 37CFR § 1.53(f).The reissue applicantwill be
givena periodof time toprovide the missingpartsandto paythe surcharge under37 CFR § 1.16(e).See MPEP § 1410.01. (A),(B) and(D) are
clearlyincorrectsince the inventorsandassignee wouldbe barredfroma broadeningreissue if filedafterthe twoyearperiodsetinthe statute.
(C) isincorrectsince the reissue applicationwasfiledwithoutatleastone broadeningclaimpriortothe expirationof the two-yeartime period
setin 35 U.S.C.§ 251.

64. 12. ANSWER:(C) isthe mostcorrect answer.MPEP § 2106(IV)(B)(2)(b)(i),underthe heading“Safe Harbors,”subheading“IndependentPhysical
Acts (Post-ComputerProcessActivity),”statesthat“[e]xamplesof thistype of statutoryprocessinclude…[a] methodof controllingamechanical
robot whichreliesuponstoringdataina computerthatrepresentsvarioustypesof mechanical movementsof the robot,usingacomputer
processorto calculate positioningof the robotinrelationtogiventasksto be performedbythe robot,and controllingthe robot’smovement
and positionbased onthe calculatedposition.”(A) isatrue statement,andistherefore anincorrectanswer.AssetforthinMPEP§ 2105 a “ new
mineral discoveredinthe earthora newplantfoundinthe wildisnotpatentable subjectmatter.”(B) isan incorrectanswer.Assetforthin
MPEP § 2106(IV)(B)(2)(b)(i),underthe heading“Safe Harbors,”subheading“Manipulationof DataRepresentingPhysical Objects orActivities
(Pre-ComputerProcessActivity),”statesthat“[e]xamplesof claimedprocessesthatdonot limitthe claimedinventiontopre-computingsafe
harbor include:... - selectingasetof arbitrarymeasurementpointvalues([Inre] Sarkar,588 F.2d [1330] at 1331, 200 USPQ [132] at 135).” (D)
isan incorrectanswer.MPEP § 2106(IV)(B)(2)(b)(i) underthe heading“Safe Harbors,”subheading“IndependentPhysical Acts(Post-Computer
ProcessActivity),”statesthat“[e]xamplesof claimedprocessthatdonotachieve a practical applicationinclude:-stepof ‘updatingalarmlimits’
foundto constitute changingthe numbervalue of avariable torepresentthe resultof the calculation(Parkerv.Flook,437 U.S.584, 585, 198
USPQ 193, 195 (1978).” (E) isa true statement,andtherefore isanincorrectanswer.MPEP§ 2106(IV)(B)(1),underthe heading“Nonstatutory
SubjectMatter” states“[Inre]Warmerdam,33 F.3d [1354,] at 1361, 31 USPQ2d [1754,] at 1760 (claimtoa data structure perse held
nonstatutory).”

65. 13. ANSWER:(A) isthe most correct answer.MPEP§ 2113, underthe heading“ProductBy-ProcessClaimsAre NotLimitedToThe Manipulations
Of The RecitedSteps,OnlyThe Structure ImpliedByThe Steps,”states“’eventhoughproduct-by-processclaimsare limitedbyanddefinedby
the process,determinationof patentabilityisbasedonthe productitself.The patentabilityof aproduct doesnotdependonitsmethodof
production.If the productinthe product-by-processclaimisthe same asor obviousfroma productof the priorart, the claimis unpatentable
eventhoughthe priorproductwas made by a differentprocess.’Inre Thorpe,777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed.Cir.1985).” The issue
iswhetherthe claimedmixtureYisthe same as or obviousoverthe patentedmixture Y.MPEP§ 2113, underthe heading“Once A Product
AppearingToBe SubstantiallyIdentical IsFoundAndA 35 U.S.C.102/103 RejectionMade,The BurdenShiftsToThe ApplicantToShowAn
UnobviousDifference,”states“[o]nce the examinerprovidesarationale tendingtoshowthatthe claimedproductappearstobe the same or
similartothat of the priorart, althoughproducedbya differentprocess,the burdenshiftstoapplicanttocome forwardwithevidence
establishinganunobviousdifference betweenthe claimedproductandthe priorart product.In re Marosi,710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292
(Fed.Cir.1983).” Evidence thatthe twoprocessesproduce differentpropertiesisgermane tothe issue of patentabilityof the product-by-
processclaim.Accordingly,acomparisonof the resultsobtainedbyconductingthe processrecitedinthe claimversusthe processusedby
patentA andwhichshowsthat the claimedproductexhibitsanunexpectedlylowermeltingpointwouldbe apersuasivedemonstrationthat,
althoughthe productswouldappeartobe substantiallyidentical,infact,theyare patentablydifferent.Ex parte Gray,10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd.Pat.
App.& Inter.1989). Therefore,the bestreplytothe outstandingrejectionwouldbe toargue thatthe claimedproducthasan unexpectedly
lowermeltingpointandtosupportthat argumentwithevidence showingthatthe resultof the patentA processisa mixture withhighermelting
pointas comparedto the claimedproduct.(B) isincorrect.The patentabilityof aproduct-by-processclaimisdeterminedonthe basisof product
characteristics,notprocesssteps.(C) isincorrect.The declarationisconclusory,asopposedtobeingfactual.Thus,the argumentisnot
supportedbyfacts.As statedinMPEP § 716.02(c), underthe heading“OpinionEvidence,”“Althoughanaffidavitordeclarationwhichstatesonly
conclusionsmayhave some probative value,suchanaffidavitordeclarationmayhave littleweightwhenconsideredinlightof all the evidence
of recordinthe application.Inre Brandstadter,484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973).” Thus,the replyin(A) isthe most correct answervis-
à-vis(C).(D) like (B),isincorrectforthe same reasondiscussedfor(B).(E) isincorrect.Like (C),thisreplyrightlyfocusesonproductproperties.
But withoutthe comparative factual evidence tosupportit,thisreplyisweakerthanone describedin(A).

66. 14. ANSWER:The correctansweris answer(E).See MPEP§ 706.02(f)(1) ingeneral andExample 7 inparticular.(A) isnotcorrect as the
publicationunder35U.S.C. § 122(b) doeshave a priorart date under35 U.S.C.102(e). (B) and (D) are notcorrect because March 27, 2002 and
December1,2000 are not the earliestpriorartdate under35 U.S.C.§ 102(e).The publicationhasanearlierpriorartdate than March 27, 2002
and December1,2000 because of itsbenefit/priorityclaimstothe international applicationandthe provisional application.SeeMPEP§
706.02(f)(1). (C) isnot correct as itis nota filingdate foranyapplicationinthisquestion.

67. 15. ANSWER:(C) isthe mostcorrect answer.37 §§ CFR1.6(d)(3); 1.8(a)(2)(i)(F);1.495(b);MPEP § 1893.01(a)(1), 2nd paragraph.The filingof the
copy of the international applicationandthe basicnational fee inordertoavoidabandonmentunder37 CFR§ 1.495(b), as appropriate,maynot
be transmittedbyfacsimile.See 37CFR § 1.6(d)(3) and37 CFR § 1.8(a)(2)(i)(F).(A)isnotthe mostcorrect answerbecause facsimile transmission
isnot permittedinthe situationssetforthin37 CFR § 1.6(d).(B) isnot the mostcorrect answerbecause eventhoughanoathor declarationmay
be submittedbyfacsimiletransmissionassetforthin MPEP § 602, the national stage submissionwasimproperforthe reasons discussedin(C).
(D) is notthe mostcorrect answerbecause (C) isthe mostcomplete answer.Facsimiletransmissionsmay notbe usedtofile acopy of the
international applicationnecessarytoenterthe national stage.(E) isnotthe mostcorrect answerbecause facsimile transmissionmaybe usedto
file certaincorrespondence inPCTapplications.See MPEP§1805.

68. 16. ANSWER:(C) isthe mostcorrect answer.The principle inStatement3,that considerationof inherentpropertiesispartof proper
considerationof the inventionasa whole,isrecitedinMPEP§ 2141.02, underthe heading“DisclosedInherentPropertiesAre PartOf ‘AsA
Whole’Inquiry,”andinInre Antonie,559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1977). (A) isincorrect,because the properquestioniswhetherthe
inventionasawhole,notjustthe differences,wouldhave beenobvious.See MPEP§2141.02, underthe heading“The ClaimedInventionAsA
Whole Must Be Considered,”(citingStratoflex,Inc.v.AeroquipCorp.,713 F.2d1530, 218 USPQ 871 (Fed.Cir.1983). (B) isincorrectbecause an
examinershouldconsidersuchassertionsbyaninventoraspart of the “subjectmatteras a whole.”See MPEP§ 2141.02 (citingInre Sponnoble,
405 F.2d 578, 585, 160 USPQ 237, 243 (CCPA 1969)). (D) and (E) are incorrectbecause theyinclude incorrectStatements1and/or2.

69. 17. ANSWER:The correctansweris answer(C).35 U.S.C. § 102(e); MPEP § 706.02(f). The applicationpublicationisaproperreference under35
U.S.C.102(e) because itwas filedbyanotherpriortothe filingdate of the invention.See MPEP§ 706.02(f) et seq.Answer (A) isincorrect.The
reference inanswer(A) isnotaproperreference under35 U.S.C.§ 102(e) because itsinternational filingdate waspriortoNovember29,2000
therebyfailingone of the three conditionsforaWIPOpublicationof aninternationalapplicationtobe appliedunder35U.S.C. § 102(e). See
MPEP § 706(f)(1),underthe heading“I.Determine The Appropriate 35U.S.C. 102(e) For Each Potential Reference ByFollowing The Guidelines,
ExamplesAndFlowChartsSetForthBelow,”subpart(C),whichstates“[I]f the potential reference resultedfrom,orclaimedthe benefitof,an
international application,the followingmustbe determined:(1) If the international applicationmeetsthe followingthreeconditions:(a) an
international filingdate onorafterNovember29, 2000 . . . thenthe international filingdate isaU.S. filingdate forpriorart purposesunder35
U.S.C.102(e).” The reference in(B) isnota properreference under35 U.S.C.§ 102(e) because the reference isnotbyanother.See MPEP§
706.02(f). The reference in(D) is nota properreference under35U.S.C. § 102(e) because 35 U.S.C.§ 102(e) referstopatentsand patent
applications,notjournal articles.See MPEP§ 706.02(f)(1).(E) isnot correct because (C) iscorrectand (A),(B) and(D) are incorrect.

70. 18. ANSWER:(C) isthe mostcorrect answer.See MPEP§ 605.04(b), whichstates“Exceptfor correctionof a typographical ortransliterationerror
inthe spellingof aninventor'sname,arequesttohave the name changedto the signedversionoranyothercorrections inthe name of the
inventor(s)willnotbe entertained...Whenatypographical ortransliterationerrorinthe spellingof aninventor'sname is discoveredduring
pendencyof anapplication,apetitionisnotrequired,norisa newoath or declarationunder 37 CFR1.63 needed.The U.S.[PTO] shouldsimply
be notifiedof the errorandreference tothe notificationpaperwill be made onthe previouslyfiledoathordeclarationby the Office.”(A),(B)
and (D) couldresultinthe spellingof Jon’sname beingcorrectedinUSPTOrecords,but woulddosoat a highercostto applicant,andtherefore
neitherone isthe mostcorrect answer.Furthermore,(A)isalsonotcorrect inthat if a requesttoadd JohnJonesas an inventorwastobe filed,
anotherrequest(andfee) todeleteJonJoneswouldbe required.(B) iswrongbecause apetitionunder37 CFR § 1.182 isnot requiredif the error
inthe name isa typographical error,andthe factsspecifythatthe error inthe spellingof “John”as“Jon” is a typographical error.(D) isnot
correct because notonlywouldfilingacontinuationcreate anadditional expensive,butfilinganewapplicationcouldalso delayexamination.(E)
isnot correct because pursuantto37 CFR § 1.2, businesswiththe Office istobe conducted inwriting,and,evenmore importantly,because“itis
improperforanyone,includingcounsel,toalter,rewrite,orpartlyfill inanypart of the application,includingthe oath ordeclaration,after
executionof the oathor declarationbythe applicant.”MPEP§ 605.04(a).