Lisa Parmley, USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006

Patent Bar MPEP Q & A Podcast

Patent Bar Review

Author

Lisa Parmley, USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006

Category

Education

Latest episode

Jun 30, 2026

Where to listen?

Podcasts in the app Replaio Radio Coming soon

Podcasts are coming to the app soon. Install now and be the first to see a whole new take on podcasts

Get it on Google Play Install for free Android 5M+ downloads · 4.8 rating iOS soon

Episodes

MPEP Q & A 104: What Submission of Article 19 Amendments Should Comprise 22.08.2017

Question: Name one item the submission of Article 19 amendments should comprise. Answer: The submission of Article 19 amendments should comprise: (i) a complete set of claims in replacement of the claims originally filed (ii) a letter which must indicate the differences between the claims as filed and those as amended plus the basis for […] The post MPEP Q & A 104: What Submission of Ar...

MPEP Q & A 103: What Grounds for Seeking Inter Partes Review are Limited to Compared with Post-Grant Review 15.08.2017

Question: What are the grounds for seeking inter partes review limited to compared with post-grant review? Answer: The grounds for seeking inter partes review are limited to issues raised under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. In contrast, the grounds for seeking post-grant review […] The post MPEP Q & A 103: What Gro...

MPEP Q & A 102: Earlier Concluded Examination or Review of Patent 08.08.2017

Question: What is an earlier concluded examination or review of the patent? Answer: An earlier concluded examination or review of the patent is: (A) the original examination of the application which matured into the patent; (B) the examination of the patent in a reissue application that has resulted in a reissue of the patent; (C) […] The post MPEP Q & A 102: Earlier Concluded Examinati...

MPEP Q & A 101: Petition for a Derivation Proceeding 01.08.2017

Question: What must a petition for a derivation proceeding provide? Answer: In a petition for a derivation proceeding, the petitioner must: (i) identify which application or patent is disputed; and (ii) provide at least one affidavit addressing communication of the derived invention and the lack of authorization for filing the earlier application. Chapter Details: The […] The post MPEP Q &#0...

MPEP Q & A 100: Activities Used as an Indication of Commercial Exploitation 25.07.2017

Question: List two activities that can be used as an indication of commercial exploitation? Answer: The following activities should be used by the examiner as indicia of this subjective commercial intent: Preparation of various contemporaneous “commercial” documents, e.g., orders, invoices, receipts, delivery schedules, etc.; Preparation of price lists and distribution of price quotations; Display...

MPEP Q & A 99: Types of Information Considered Status Information 18.07.2017

Question: List two types of information that are considered status information. Answer: Status information of an application means only the following information: whether the application is pending, abandoned, or patented; whether the application has been published; the application number or the serial number plus any one of the filing date of the national application, the […] The post MPEP...

MPEP Q & A 98: Fees Reduced by 75% for Micro Entities 11.07.2017

Question: List at least 2 fees that are reduced by 75% for micro entities. Answer: The fees which are reduced by 75% for micro entities include filing fees (nonprovisional and provisional), search fees, examination fees, issue fees, and appeal fees for utility, design, plant, and reissue patent applications. Also included are patent maintenance fees including […] The post MPEP Q & A 98:...

MPEP Q & A 97: Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection Made Under Obviousness Analysis 04.07.2017

Question: What must any nonstatutory double patenting rejection made under the obviousness analysis make clear? Answer: Any nonstatutory double patenting rejection made under the obviousness analysis should make clear: (A) The differences between the inventions defined by the conflicting claims — a claim in the patent compared to a claim in the application; and (B) The […] The post MPEP Q &#...

MPEP Q & A 96: When a Nonpublication Request is Not Appropriate 27.06.2017

Question: When is a nonpublication request not appropriate? Answer: A nonpublication request is not appropriate if applicants have already filed a counterpart foreign or international application in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires publication of applications at eighteen months after filing. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in...

MPEP Q & A 95: What an Examiner May Do After Considering the Issues on Appeal 20.06.2017

Question: What may an examiner do after he or she has considered the issues on appeal? Answer: After an appeal brief has been filed and the examiner has considered the issues on appeal, the examiner may: reopen prosecution to enter a new ground of rejection with approval from the supervisory patent examiner ; allow the […] The post MPEP Q & A 95: What an Examiner May Do After Considerin...

MPEP Q & A 94: When a Concurrent Conflict of Interest Exists 13.06.2017

Question: Except as provided in 37 C.F.R. 11.107 (b), a practitioner shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. When does a concurrent conflict of interest exist? Answer: A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: The representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or There […] The post MPEP Q & A 94: When a...

MPEP Q & A 93: What is Essential Material 06.06.2017

Question: What is essential material? Answer: “Essential material” is defined as that which is necessary to: provide a written description of the claimed invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it […] The post MPEP Q & A 93: What is Essential Material appeared first...

MPEP Q & A 92: Statutory Requirements to be Met Before Certificate of Correction for an Applicant’s Mistake to Issue 30.05.2017

Question: What are the two statutory requirements that must be met before a Certificate of Correction for an applicant’s mistake to issue? Answer: Two separate statutory requirements must be met before a Certificate of Correction for an applicant’s mistake may issue. The first statutory requirement concerns the nature, i.e., type, of the mistake for which […] The post MPEP Q & A 92: Sta...

MPEP Q & A 91: Non-Limiting Examples of Types of Characteristics Considered by the Courts to Determine Marked Difference 23.05.2017

Question: List three non-limiting examples of the types of characteristics considered by the courts when determining whether there is a marked difference. Answer: Non-limiting examples of the types of characteristics considered by the courts when determining whether there is a marked difference include: Biological or pharmacological functions or activities; Chemical and physical properties; Phenot...

MPEP Q & A 90: Conditions an Examiner Should Check for Before Requiring Applicant to Add Claim to Provoke Interference 16.05.2017

Question: What 5 conditions should an examiner check for before requiring an applicant to add a claim to provoke an interference? Answer: The 5 conditions an examiner should check for before requiring an applicant to add a claim to provoke an interference include:  that the application is otherwise completed  that the required claim does not […] The post MPEP Q & A 90: Conditions an Exa...

MPEP Q & A 89: Concepts the Courts Have Found to be Laws of Nature and Natural Phenomena 09.05.2017

Question: List 3 examples of concepts courts have found to be laws of nature and natural phenomena. Answer: The types of concepts courts have found to be laws of nature and natural phenomena are shown by these cases, which are intended to be illustrative and not limiting: An isolated DNA; a correlation that is the […] The post MPEP Q & A 89: Concepts the Courts Have Found to be Laws of...

MPEP Q & A 88: What the Patent Prosecution Highway Attempts to Accomplish 02.05.2017

Question: What does the Patent Prosecution Highway or PPH attempt to accomplish? Answer: The Patent Prosecution Highway, or PPH enables an applicant who receives a positive ruling on patent claims from one participating office to request accelerated prosecution of corresponding claims in another participating office, which allows the applicant to obtain a patentability decision in the […] Th...

MPEP Q & A 87: Reasons Practitioner Should Act as an Advocate Before a Tribunal 25.04.2017

Question: List one reason a practitioner should act as an advocate at a proceeding before a tribunal in which the practitioner is likely to be a necessary witness. Answer: A practitioner shall not act as advocate at a proceeding before a tribunal in which the practitioner is likely to be a necessary witness unless: The […] The post MPEP Q & A 87: Reasons Practitioner Should Act as an Ad...

MPEP Q & A 86: Assignment of Patent to Change Address for Maintenance Fee Purposes 18.04.2017

Question: If a patent is assigned, will that change the “correspondence address” or “fee address”  used for maintenance fee purposes? Answer: An assignment of a patent application or patent does not result in a change of the “correspondence address” or “fee address” for maintenance fee purposes. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be […] The post MPEP Q & A 86: Assignment o...

MPEP Q & A 85: Board on Deferring Action on a Petition for a Derivation Proceeding 11.04.2017

Question: Can the Board defer action on a petition for a derivation proceeding? Answer: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board may defer action on a petition for a derivation proceeding until the expiration of the 3-month period beginning on the date on which the Director issues a patent that includes the claimed invention that is […] The post MPEP Q & A 85: Board on Deferring Action on a Pe...

MPEP Q & A 84: Division of Fees Between Practitioners Not in the Same Firm 04.04.2017

Question: Can a division of a fee between practitioners who are not in the same firm may be made? Answer: A division of a fee between practitioners who are not in the same firm may be made only if: The division is in proportion to the services performed by each practitioner or each practitioner assumes […] The post MPEP Q & A 84: Division of Fees Between Practitioners Not in the Same Fi...

MPEP Q & A 83: Filing a Petition to Institute a Post-Grant Review 28.03.2017

Question: Who may file a petition to institute a post-grant review? Answer: A person who is not the patent owner may file a petition to institute a post-grant review, unless the petitioner or real party-in-interest had already filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent. A petition may not be […] The post MPEP Q & A 83: Filing a Petition to Institute a Post-Gr...

MPEP Q & A 82: Components International Design Applications Designating the U.S. Must Include 21.03.2017

Question: What 3 components (in addition to the mandatory requirements) must an international design application designating the U.S. include? Answer: In addition to the mandatory requirements otherwise required for international design applications, an international design application designating the United States must also include: a claim; indications concerning the identity of the creator (i.e...

MPEP Q & A 81: Items Applicant’s Must Establish Under 35 USC 156 14.03.2017

Question: List one item the applicant must establish under 35 U.S.C. 156(a)(1)-(5). Answer: 35 U.S.C. 156(a)(1)-(5) require that the applicant establish that: (1) the patent has not expired before an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d) was filed (this may be an application for patent term extension under subsection (d)(1) or an application for interim extension […] The post MPEP Q & A 81...

MPEP Q & A 80: Assignments Potentially Utilized as the Oath or Declaration 07.03.2017

Question: Is it possible for an assignment in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012 to be utilized as the oath or declaration? Answer: Yes, for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, an assignment may contain the statements required to be made in an oath or declaration (“assignment-statement”), and if the assignment is made […] The post MPEP Q & A 80: Assignments...

Listen to the Patent Bar MPEP Q & A Podcast podcast in Replaio

Radio and podcasts in one app - free, with no sign-up. Install today and do not miss the launch

Get it on Google Play

Replaio is not a podcast publisher; show names, artwork and audio belong to their authors and are distributed through public RSS feeds.