Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Need PATENT law help! Please, please, please!!  (Read 1156 times)

lawschoolchick

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Need PATENT law help! Please, please, please!!
« on: December 10, 2009, 03:10:57 PM »
I have a patent law final coming up next week and don't understand a lot of it yet (yay for procrastination).  Anyways, my Prof posted some sample MC (which will prob end up on the exam, based on his reputation, previous exams, etc.), but he refuses to discuss any of the answers.  I'll post the questions below and am hoping someone can give me the answers.  I've already attempted the questions and am pretty sure I know the answers, but I'd like to be 100% positive.  Thanks!

1. A claim having a very narrow scope will be:

         1. Guaranteed a broader interpretation under the doctrine of equivalents.
         2. Objected to by the examiner because the claim fails to adequately protect the inventor.
         3. Automatically rejected by the examiner under 35 U.S.C. 112.
         4. Easier to design around.

2. Which of the following types of claims should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101:

         1. A claim to a new use of a known composition.
         2. A product-by-process claim.
         3. A claim to a law of nature.
         4. A claim to an improvement on a known machine.

3. Designing around a valid patent claim to avoid infringement is:

         1. Considered contributory infringement.
         2. Consistent with the constitutional purpose of the patent system.
         3. Contrary to the constitutional purpose of the patent system.
         4. Avoidable by the use of ambiguous claims having a scope that cannot be determined with reasonable certainty by competitors.

4. The requirements for a specification are set forth in which of the following statutory provisions?

         1. 35 U.S.C. 101
         2. 35 U.S.C. 102
         3. 35 U.S.C. 103
         4. 35 U.S.C. 112



Jake_MONDATTA

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
    • View Profile
Re: Need PATENT law help! Please, please, please!!
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2009, 05:54:05 PM »
1 (4)
2 (3)
3 (3)
4 (4)

Answers are in parens.  Unless I'm drunk and don't know it, it seems like there is only one correct answer to each question. 

lawschoolchick

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Need PATENT law help! Please, please, please!!
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2009, 05:58:26 PM »
Awesome!  This is what I had.  Thank you so much!!

Jake_MONDATTA

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 339
    • View Profile
Re: Need PATENT law help! Please, please, please!!
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2009, 06:26:38 PM »
no problem. good luck.

plex

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
    • View Profile
Re: Need PATENT law help! Please, please, please!!
« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2009, 03:48:55 PM »
Ugh, I need to take patent law, those questions are ridiculously easy for a patent agent.

PatentlyAbsurd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Need PATENT law help! Please, please, please!!
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2009, 02:44:48 PM »
You don't get questions like this on the patent bar.  These are way too easy.  If this is indicative of what you have to know for your patent final then you should have nothing to worry about.

beachbum2

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Need PATENT law help! Please, please, please!!
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2009, 09:58:47 PM »
1 (4)
2 (3)
3 (3)
4 (4)

Answers are in parens.  Unless I'm drunk and don't know it, it seems like there is only one correct answer to each question. 

I disagree and think the answer to number 3 is 2.  In exchange for the limited monopoly an inventor must disclose his/her invention.  Part of the disclosure requirements under 37 CFR 1.75(a) is that "The specification must conclude with a claim particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention or discovery."  This is to allow people to avoid infringement by designing around and in designing around an inventor may come up with a new invention.  Also, this answer is consistent with the first question.