Posted here is the instruction portion of the final examination. The actual question portion (which is not included) is 6 pages, double spaced.
Please read this document before the exam.
The exam is Thursday, May 9, 2013, 9:00 a.m. to noon, for 3 hours.
The assigned exam room(s) are: 111 TUII.
Please be in room 111 TUII by 8:45 a.m. for examination distribution.
| Question |
4/27/2013 - is best mode on the final? |
| Answer |
no |
| Question |
5/5/13 - Is "specific utility" something separate and distinct from operability and substantial utility? |
| Answer |
With reference to overhead 60, our standard for the class should be to say that utility needs to be substantial, specific, and credible. Please note that the doctrine of utility has an "alphabet soup" feel - lots of similar words being used to say what is needed. Operability is a subset of substantial: for the utility to be of immediate benefit to the public it must be operable. Specific utility means that the use has a nexus with the claim, excluding "use to fill up a hole." Credible utility might also relate back to operability; this means a POSITA would recognize and accept the use. |
| Question |
5/5/13 - When determining the date of invention for novelty prior to the AIA: (g) tells us to consider conception, reduction to practice and diligence. Do we also consider these three things when determining the date of invention under 102(a) and 102(e)? Or what is considered the date of invention under 102(a) and 102(e)? |
| Answer |
Under preAIA law, date of invention is the same across 102. A reduction to practice, either actual or "constructive" (by filing) is taken as the presumptive date of invention, but it might need to be proved as coming earlier in time at the date of conception. This processes is the same for all the events of potential anticipation and invalidity in preAIA section 102. |
| Question |
5/7/13 - There were some questions about equivalence for means plus function claim limitations under section 112(f), formerly paragraph 6 under preAIA law. |
| Answer |
First, on overhead 210, ignore/remove the middle column of the table in the upper left hand corner of the overhead. Second, section 112(f) equivalence differs from the DOE in at least these ways: (i) instead of substantially similar functionality, the functionality must be identical; (ii) after-arising technology isn't available for assertion by the patent owner as a 112(f) equivalent; (iii) the five doctrines limiting the DOE deploy differently, or not at all for some of the five, but given that this was not covered in class, assume for the "law of the class" that the five doctrines limiting the "regular" DOE do not limit equivalence asserted under section 112(f). |
| Question |
{ more forthcoming? } |
| Answer |
Here is a prototype of the exam instructions I anticipate using on the final examination. I contemplate that the ultimate exam instructions will be substantially similar to these instructions, however, I reserve the right to change these exam instructions in any way.
Here is a document about how to write answers for my exams and some information about how I evaluate these answers. There may be revisions to this document during the Spring 2010 "exam season."
Here is a video of a presentation I gave about how to prepare for courses and course examinations. To be most useful, one should watch this video sometime during the first third of the course. Here are the slides used in that video.
Here is a video of a presentation I recommend about how to outline for a course. To be most useful, one should watch this video sometime during the first third of the course.
The items available are the Patent examination from Spring 2003, Spring 2004, and Spring 2006, and a composite student model answer (posted without any individually identifiable information) from students that earned a high grade for each class.
Please note that I generally calibrate the length of my exams with the number of course hours. For a three hour class, the examination will be up to, but no more than, 6 pages, double spaced.
The Spring 2006 Patent Law final examination is representative of the final examination I contemplate for the course.
Here is the Spring 2006 Patent Law examination, and here is the composite student model answer. Please note that the composite answer does not necessarily address every issue, nor resolve every issue in such a way as to earn all the points for that issue. Both the examination and the answer should be read in light of the documents I have posted above describing how to deal with my exams.
The Spring 2004 Patent Law final examination is representative of the final examination I contemplate for the course.
Here is the Spring 2004 Patent Law examination, and here is the composite student model answer. Please note that the composite answer does not necessarily address every issue, nor resolve every issue in such a way as to earn all the points for that issue. Both the examination and the answer should be read in light of the documents I have posted above describing how to deal with my exams.
The Spring 2003 Patent Law final examination is representative of the final examination I contemplate for the course.
Here is the Spring 2003 Patent Law examination, and here is the composite student model answer. Please note that the composite answer does not necessarily address every issue, nor resolve every issue in such a way as to earn all the points for that issue. Both the examination and the answer should be read in light of the documents I have posted above describing how to deal with my exams.
Last modified on May 7, 2013, by Greg R. Vetter