Showing 9 ideas for label trending idea

MISCELLANEOUS - Appendices and Other

Implement Friendly URLs on mpep.uspto.gov trending idea

The URLs for the http://mpep.uspto.gov site are not currently friendly and it can be difficult to determine what a link might lead you to.

The link for MPEP 1200 is currently: http://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/detail/manual/MPEP/current/d0e18.xml#/manual/MPEP/DC1_FPindexR-07.2015/d0e122292.xml

It would be helpful if it were something more like this: http://mpep.uspto.gov/e9r072015/MPEP/1200

The link for 35 USC 101 is currently:... more »

Voting

9 votes
9 up votes
0 down votes

600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

"Infringement Test" in 608.01(n) trending idea

MPEP 608.01(n)(III) is labeled "infringement test," but the "infringement test" is actually described in the previous section, MPEP 608.01(n)(II), third paragraph, discussing whether or not claims could be met without infringing the parent claims. In contrast, MPEP 608.01(n)(III) references infringement in its first paragraph, but then only discusses the "further limitation" requirement.

Voting

3 votes
3 up votes
0 down votes

800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting

Impermissible shift - which claims are used for comparison? trending idea

MPEP 818.02(a) says that in making a determination of whether election by original presentation has occurred, the present claimed should be compared to the "original claims." But this section directs the examiner to 821.03, which in turn cites 37 CFR 1.145, both of which say "previously claimed" instead of "original claims."

A distinction can arise because application may have more than one set of amendments (i.e.,... more »

Voting

3 votes
3 up votes
0 down votes

2100 Patentability

Inaccurate paraphrase of In re Schreiber - MPEP 2114(I) trending idea

Examiners often reference the decision of In re Schreiber, 1218 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) for the proposition that “claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function” because it is described this way in MPEP §2114(I). However, it appears that the Schreiber court itself never made such a statement. Rather, the court found that because the claimed invention... more »

Voting

3 votes
6 up votes
3 down votes

600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

Filing non-provisional application automatically corrects errors trending idea

The previous rules provided an alternative method for correcting errors in provisional applications. Specifically, in § 201.03 section VI the 8th edition (Rev. 9 2012) the MPEP instructed that filing a non-provisional application with inventor overlap would correct any errors as to inventorship in a provisional application. This language, however, is absent in the present edition even though it is based on the same law... more »

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes

600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

MPEP 608.02(a) - when are drawings and content thereof required trending idea

The MPEP should more clearly spell out when drawings are actually necessary. In process inventions, it seems that drawings should not be required, but the text of MPEP 608.02 seems to be an open invitation to examiners to make unnecessary requirements. Moreover, what exactly does "admits of illustration by a drawing" mean? Is it not possible to articulate the statute in more clear language into the rule? 35 USC 113... more »

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes

1200 Appeal

Basis for 1207.04? trending idea

Section 1207.04 of the MPEP states that Examiners can reopen prosecution after the Applicant has filed an Appeal Brief. I do not see any basis in the patent statutes or rules for this section of the MPEP. Nor is there any justifiably reason to allow this. Examiners are allowed to place new rejections in the Examiner's Answer, which the Applicant can then choose to respond to by reopening prosecution or proceeding... more »

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes

MISCELLANEOUS - Appendices and Other

Introduction: clarify what "the rules" do trending idea

Introduction (Nov. 2015), p. 1, right column, bottom, reads, in part: "The primary function of the rules is to advise the public of the rules which ... must be followed before the USPTO". Would you please rewrite the beginning part of that sentence for clarity? It seems to me a bit redundant.

Suggestion: "The rules govern conduct of examiners, applicants, and patent practitioners before the Office. The rules are available... more »

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes

MISCELLANEOUS - Appendices and Other

Clarify which section the roman-numeral headers apply to trending idea

The headers at the top of each page of the MPEP PDF give the section number. As far as I can tell, it's the last section number on that page. For example, p. 2100-141 (Nov. 2015) ends with half a sentence of 2142, so the header reads "2142." However, the vast majority of text on that page is 2141.03. Would it be possible to clarify which text is part of which section in some way? At present, I regularly wind up reading... more »

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes