MPEP Q & A 108: Computer Functions Recognized to be Well‐Understood, Routine, and Conventional Functions When They are Claimed in a Merely Generic Manner

Question: List two computer functions recognized to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. Answer: The courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: Performing repetitive calculations, Receiving, processing, and storing data, […]

MPEP Q & A 107: Times When Explicit Petitions for Foreign Filing Licenses May Be Considered by Applicants

Question: Name two times when an applicant may want to consider an explicit petition for foreign filing licenses. Answer: Explicit petitions for foreign filing licenses may be considered by applicants when: the filing receipt license is not granted; the filing receipt has not yet been issued; there is no corresponding U.S. application; subject matter additional […]

MPEP Q & A 106: Indicia That a Continuing Reissue Application is Being Filed

Question: Name two indicia that a continuing reissue application is being filed. Answer: Indicia that a continuing reissue application is being filed are: A reissue oath/declaration, which is not merely a copy of the parent’s reissue oath/declaration. A specification and/or claims in proper double column reissue format. Amendments in proper format. A statement of assignee […]

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

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 […]

MPEP Q & A 101: Petition for a Derivation Proceeding

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 […]

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

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 of […]

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

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 […]