patent bar practice exam – preview
Before you go any further, read why I’m studying for the patent bar exam.
If you still aren’t compelled to take the exam, there isn’t much reason for you to read anything below this.
…
…
…
Still there? Great. What follows is a sample question of the patent bar exam I developed to help myself study for the patent agent exam. These 5 questions should give you a feel for the value of the full patent bar exam.
More about the exam:
- It’s cheap. $20/month compared to $1,845 for the renowned PLI course.
- It is incredibly valuable if you want to become a patent agent (as mentioned above, here’s why I do). Otherwise it is worthless.
- Its value lies in the interface and hyperlinks (see below). You will be spending hours in front of these questions, and this interface crushes the PDF alternatives from the PTO. The questions, answers, and explanations themselves are taken from the October 2003 exam and exist FOR FREE elsewhere on the web.
- You can have the questions linear or shuffled.
- It works wonderfully with iPhone and iPad, so you can study in the interstitial spaces of your life
- You can take the test as much as you like, no restrictions.
- Your grade is calculated after every response, so you always know where you stand.
If you find it as valuable as I do, you can subscribe for $20/month by clicking the PayPal button below. Once you have checked out from Paypal you will be asked to create a login, after which you will have unlimited access to the exam.
| Question 1 |
Assuming that a rejection has been properly made final, which of the following statements is not in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
| An objection and requirement to delete new matter from the specification is subject to supervisory review by petition under 37 CFR 1.181. This is incorrect: it is in accordance with proper USPTO procedure. See , MPEP § 2163.06, under the heading “Review Of New Matter Objections And Rejections.”
| |
| A rejection of claims for lack of support by the specification (new matter) is reviewable by appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. This is incorrect: it is in accordance with proper USPTO procedure. See MPEP § 2163.06, under the heading “Review Of New Matter Objections And Rejections.” | |
| If both the claims and the specification contain the same new matter, and there has been both a rejection and objection by the primary examiner, the new matter issue should be decided by petition, and is not appealable | |
| If both the claims and the specification contain the same new matter, and there has been both a rejection and objection by the examiner, the new matter issue is
appealable, and should not be decided by petition This is incorrect: it is in accordance with proper USPTO procedure. See MPEP § 2163.06, under the heading “Review Of New Matter Objections And Rejections.” | |
| None of the above. This is incorrect: one of the options above is correct. |
| Question 2 |
Inventor Jones files an application under 35 USC 111(a) on March 27, 2002. The application is a continuation of an international application, which was filed on December 1, 2000. The international application claims priority to a U.S. provisional application filed December 2, 1999. The international application designated the United States, and was published in English under PCT Article 21(2). All applications contained the exact same disclosure. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, what, if any, is the earliest prior art date under 35 USC 102(e) for the publication of the 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application under 35 USC 122(b)?
| None, the publication has no prior art date under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) This is incorrect: the publication under 35 U.S.C. § 122(b) does have a prior art date under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). | |
| March 27, 2002 This is incorrect: because March 27, 2002 and December 1, 2000 are not the earliest prior art date under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The publication has an earlier prior art date than March 27, 2002 and December 1, 2000 because of its benefit/priority claims to the international application and the provisional application. See MPEP § 706 .02(f)(1). | |
| December 11, 2001 This is incorrect: as it is not a filing date for any application in this question. | |
| December 1, 2000 This is incorrect: because March 27, 2002 and December 1, 2000 are not the earliest prior art date under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The publication has an earlier prior art date than March 27, 2002 and December 1, 2000 because of its benefit/priority claims to the international application and the provisional application. See MPEP § 706 .02(f)(1). | |
| December 2, 1999 |
| Question 3 |
Reexamination has been ordered following receipt of a request for reexamination of U.S. Patent X, filed by the patentee. Patent X contains independent claims 1 through 4, each directed to a hydrocyclone separator apparatus. They are the only claims that were ever presented during prosecution of the application that matured into Patent X. In the first Office action during reexamination, claims 1 through 4 are rejected as being obvious under 35 USC 103 over U.S. Patent Z. The apparatus is used for separating material, including fibers suspended in a liquid suspension, into a light fraction containing the fibers, and a heavy fraction containing rejects. Assume there are no issues under 35 USC 102, 103, or 112, and that any dependent claim is properly dependent. Recommend which of the following claims, if any, would be subject to rejection under 35 USC 305 for improperly enlarging the scope of the original claim in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP.
| Claim 5. A hydrocyclone separator apparatus according to claim 4, wherein said blades are configured in the form of generally plane surfaces curved in one plane only. This is incorrect: the claim is directed to a hydrocyclone separator apparatus, i.e., “the invention as claimed,” and does not enlarge the scope of the claims in Patent X | |
| Claim 5. A hydrocyclone separator apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the outlet duct is in the form of two frustro-conical portions joined at their narrow ends. This is incorrect: the claim is directed to a hydrocyclone separator apparatus, i.e., “the invention as claimed,” and does not enlarge the scope of the claims in Patent X | |
| Claim 5. A method of separating material including fibers suspended in a liquid suspension comprising the steps of separating the material into a light fraction containing the fibers and a heavy fraction containing rejects, and converting the light fraction into a pulp and paper stock suspension. | |
| Claim 5. A hydrocyclone separator apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the separator chamber is conical in shape having at the narrow end an outlet for the heavy fraction and at its wide end an outlet for the light fraction. This is incorrect: the claim is directed to a hydrocyclone separator apparatus, i.e., “the invention as claimed,” and does not enlarge the scope of the claims in Patent X | |
| None of the above. This is incorrect: one of the above answers is correct |
What do you think? Worth $20/month?
This should go without saying, but I’m not a lawyer; I am an engineer. These questions in now way constitute any kind of legal advice or legal relationship between you and me.
posts via email: