Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The MPEP is based on Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which derives its authority from Title 35 of the United States Code, as well as on case law arising under those titles. The origins of the Manual date back to a 1920 Patent and Trademark Office Society publication known as the "Wolcott Manual". "One of the most fruitful endeavors ...
The examination is intended to measure the applicant's familiarity with USPTO procedures, ethics rules, federal statutes, and regulations. The applicant is allowed to use an electronic copy of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) in the computer-based examination (and historically had access to a paper copy of the MPEP for the pencil-and-paper test), but is strictly prohibited from ...
Pantograph, manual device for making drawn copies without tracing, can also enlarge or reduce; Printmaking, which includes engraving and etching. Relief printing including woodcut; Intaglio (printmaking) or copperplate engraving; Planographic printing; Line engraving; 1917 office with a "Multigraph" duplicating machine at lower right. Printing ...
In engineering and systems theory, redundancy is the intentional duplication of critical components or functions of a system with the goal of increasing reliability of the system, usually in the form of a backup or fail-safe, or to improve actual system performance, such as in the case of GNSS receivers, or multi-threaded computer processing.
Title 35 has four parts, which are delved into further later in the article: [3] Part I—United States Patent and Trademark Office; Part II—Patentability of Inventions and Grant of Patents; Part III—Patents and Protection of Patent Rights; Part IV—Patent Cooperation Treaty
An inter partes review is used to challenge the patentability of one or more claims in a U.S. patent only on a ground that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 (non-obviousness), and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. [3]
Thus, according to MPEP, the claims in a patent application may be properly restricted to (i.e. split into) two or more divisional patent applications, if the claims (i.e. claimed inventions) are either independent (MPEP § 802.01, § 806.06, and § 808.01) or distinct (MPEP § 806.05 - § 806.05(j)).
The defense of invalidity is a counter-attack on the patent itself., i.e., the validity of the patent or of the allegedly infringed claims. Case law provides other defenses, such as the first-sale doctrine, the right to repair, and unenforceability because of inequitable conduct.