Lisa Parmley, USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006
Patent Bar MPEP Q & A Podcast
Patent Bar Review
Author
Lisa Parmley, USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006
Category
Podcast website
Latest episode
Jun 30, 2026
Where to listen?
Podcasts in the app Replaio Radio Coming soonPodcasts are coming to the app soon. Install now and be the first to see a whole new take on podcasts
Episodes
MPEP Q & A 179: What is the 3-Step Test for Recapture? 20.08.2019 3:25
Question: What is the 3-step test for recapture? Answer: The three-step test for recapture is: First, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims; Next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; […] The post MPEP Q & A 179: What is...
MPEP Q & A 178: What is the Difference Between Derivation and Priority of Invention? 06.08.2019 3:16
Question: What is the difference between derivation and priority of invention? Answer: Derivation and priority of invention both focus on inventorship. Derivation addresses originality, i.e., who invented the subject matter, whereas priority focuses on which party invented the subject matter first. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of […] The post MPE...
MPEP Q & A 177: Revealing Information Relating to the Representation of a Client When the Client has Not Given Informed Consent 23.07.2019 3:48
Question: Can a patent practitioner ever reveal information relating to the representation of a client when the client has not given informed consent? Answer: Yes, a practitioner may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the practitioner reasonably believes necessary: (1) To prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm; […] The post MPEP Q...
MPEP Q & A 176: What Does a Petition Under 37 C.F.R. 1.78 Require? 09.07.2019 3:01
Question: What does a petition under 37 C.F.R. 1.78 require? Answer: A petition under 37 CFR 1.78(b) requires: the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior-filed provisional application, which must be included in application data sheet (unless previously submitted in an application data sheet); the petition fee; and a […] The post MPEP Q & A 176: What Does a P...
MPEP Q & A 175: Concepts Related to Tracking or Organizing Information 25.06.2019 3:29
Question: List a concept related to tracking or organizing information. Answer: Examples of concepts related to tracking or organizing information include; i. classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner ii. collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis iii. encoding and decoding image data – RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo [̷...
MPEP Q & A 174: Submission Types that May Not be Filed Via EFS Web. 11.06.2019 4:42
Question: List 2 submission types that may not be filed via EFS Web. Answer: The following is a list of submission types that are not permitted to be filed using EFS-Web: Plant patent applications and follow-on documents associated with plant patent applications, other than third party preissuance submissions. Requests for Reexamination for plant patents and […] The post MPEP Q & A 174:...
MPEP Q & A 173: What is a Complete Nonprovisional Application Comprised of? 28.05.2019 2:58
Question: What is a complete nonprovisional application comprised of? Answer: A complete nonprovisional application comprises the following: a specification, including claims, drawings, an oath or declaration, the prescribed filing fee, search fee, examination fee and application size fee Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 600 of the MPEP. This […] The post...
MPEP Q & A 172: Fees that Must be Paid Upon Filing a Request for Prioritized Examination 14.05.2019 3:09
Question: Name two fees that must be paid upon filing a request for prioritized examination. Answer: Upon filing the request for prioritized examination, the following fees must be paid for the application: (1) the prioritized examination fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(c), (2) the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i)(1), (3) the […] The post MPEP Q & A 172: Fees that Must be Paid Up...
MPEP Q & A 171: Instances Where Publication or Issue Date is Later Than the Current Date 30.04.2019 3:13
Question: When the publication or issue date is later than the current date (i.e., the date of the request), who will that information be given to? Answer: When the publication or issue date is later than the current date (i.e., the date of the request), such information may be given only to the applicant, an […] The post MPEP Q & A 171: Instances Where Publication or Issue Date is Late...
MPEP Q & A 170: Must a Claim be Identified to a Correct Category of Subject Matter? 16.04.2019 2:53
Question: Must a claim be identified to a correct category of subject matter? Answer: It is not necessary to identify a single category into which a claim falls, so long as it is clear that the claim falls into at least one category. It is also not necessary to identify a “correct” category into which […] The post MPEP Q & A 170: Must a Claim be Identified to a Correct Category of Subje...
MPEP Q & A 169: Non-Limiting Claims Not Directed to Any of the Statutory Categories. 02.04.2019 3:21
Question: Provide an example of a non-limiting claim that is not directed to any of the statutory categories. Answer: Examples of a non-limiting claim that is not directed to any of the statutory categories include; Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) […] The post MPEP Q & A 169: Non-Limiting Claims Not Directed...
MPEP Q & A 168: Competent Representation to a Client 19.03.2019 2:30
Question: A practitioner shall provide competent representation to a client. What does competent representation to a client entail? Answer: Competent representation requires the legal, scientific, and technical knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in the following supplement: Changes to...
MPEP Q & A 167: When Must Applicants Timely File a Notice of Foreign Filing to Avoid Abandonment of a U.S. Application? 05.03.2019 3:17
Question: Name one circumstance where applicants must timely file a notice of foreign filing to avoid abandonment of a U.S. application. Answer: Applicants must timely file a notice of foreign filing to avoid abandonment of a U.S. application if: applicant filed a nonpublication request in the U.S. application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a); applicant subsequently […] The post MPEP Q & A...
MPEP Q & A 166: Further Written Opinion Established by the International Preliminary Examining Authority 19.02.2019 4:14
Question: Name one item any further written opinion established by the International Preliminary Examining Authority should set forth. Answer: Any further written opinion established by the International Preliminary Examining Authority should set forth, as applicable: (A) Any defects in the international application concerning subject matter which is not required to be examined or which is […...
MPEP Q & A 165: When Patent Owner Fails to File Timely Response to Any Office Action Prior to an Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) 05.02.2019 4:13
Question: List one consequence for when the patent owner fails to file a timely response to any Office action prior to an Action Closing Prosecution (ACP). Answer: If the patent owner fails to file a timely response to any Office action prior to an Action Closing Prosecution (ACP), it will result in the following consequences: […] The post MPEP Q & A 165: When Patent Owner Fails to File...
MPEP Q & A 164: Computer-Implemented Methods and the Tax Strategy Provision 22.01.2019 3:41
Question: Would a computer-implemented method that is deemed novel and non-obvious be effected by the tax strategy provision even if used for a tax purpose? Answer: A computer-implemented method that is deemed novel and non-obvious would not be affected by this provision even if used for a tax purpose. For example, a novel and non-obvious […] The post MPEP Q & A 164: Computer-Implemente...
MPEP Q & A 163: What are the Most Common Basis for Filing a Reissue Application? 08.01.2019 3:02
Question: What are the most common basis for filing a reissue application? Answer: The most common bases for filing a reissue application are: the claims are too narrow or too broad; the disclosure contains inaccuracies; applicant failed to or incorrectly claimed foreign priority; and applicant failed to make reference to or incorrectly made reference to […] The post MPEP Q & A 163: Wha...
MPEP Q & A 162: When is a 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejection with Multiple References Proper? 21.12.2018 3:07
Question: When is a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection with multiple references proper? Answer: A 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over multiple references has been held to be proper when the extra references are cited to: Prove the primary reference contains an “enabled disclosure;” Explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference; or Show […] The post MPEP Q & A 162: When is a 35 U.S.C. 102 Re...
MPEP Q & A 161: Living Subject Matter and Patent Protection 11.12.2018 3:08
Question: Is it true that living subject matter with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature, such as the claimed bacterium produced by genetic engineering, are excluded from patent protection by 35 U.S.C. 101? Answer: No, it is not true. For example, the Federal Circuit has indicated that “discoveries that possess ‘markedly different characteristics from […] The post MPE...
MPEP Q & A 160: Rules for Appellant to Request to Reopen Prosecution 27.11.2018 3:08
Question: Can an Appellant request to reopen prosecution if the examiner’s answer does not have a rejection that is designated as a new ground of rejection? Answer: No, an appellant cannot request to reopen prosecution if the examiner’s answer does not have a rejection that is designated as a new ground of rejection. Chapter Details: […] The post MPEP Q & A 160: Rules for Appellant to R...
MPEP Q & A 159: What are the Two Criteria for Subject Matter Eligibility? 13.11.2018 3:35
Question: What are the two criteria for subject matter eligibility? Answer: First, the claimed invention must be in one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. Second, the claimed invention also […] The post MPEP...
MPEP Q & A 158: Can Maintenance Fees be Paid in Cash? 30.10.2018 2:33
Question: Can maintenance fees be paid in cash? Answer: Maintenance fees may not be paid in cash. A maintenance fee may be paid: with Treasury notes with national bank notes with post office money orders with certified checks over the internet by electronic funds transfer (EFT), credit card, or deposit account payment methods Chapter Details: […] The post MPEP Q & A 158: Can Maintenance...
MPEP Q & A 157: Ways a Patent May be Corrected or Amended 16.10.2018 2:39
Question: Name two ways a patent may be corrected or amended. Answer: A patent may be corrected or amended in eight ways, namely by: reissue, the issuance of a certificate of correction which becomes a part of the patent, disclaimer, reexamination, supplemental examination, inter partes review, post grant review, and covered business method review Chapter Details: […] The post MPEP Q &...
MPEP Q & A 156: What is the Definition of Fundamental Economic Practices? 02.10.2018 3:22
Question: What is the definition of fundamental economic practices? Answer: The courts have used the phrases “fundamental economic practices” or “fundamental economic concepts” to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce, such as agreements between people in the form of contracts, legal obligations, and business relations. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can […] Th...
MPEP Q & A 155: Statutes That Grounds for Post-Grant Review May be Raised For 18.09.2018 2:25
Question: List two statutes that grounds for post-grant review may be raised for. Answer: Grounds for post-grant review include grounds that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 including those based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. Other grounds available for post-grant review include 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112, with […] The post MPEP Q & A 155: Statutes Tha...
Similar podcasts
Replaio is not a podcast publisher; show names, artwork and audio belong to their authors and are distributed through public RSS feeds.