Advisory: Registration Deadline Nears for PRG’s West Coast Workshop

Alexandria, VA (June 30, 2010) — PRG will be offering The Patent Workshop: Fundamental Best Practices for Patent Prosecution for 2010 in Los Angeles, CA on July 20-23, 2010.  The registration deadline for this program is July 7, 2010, which is only one week away.  Interested customers need to register and make their hotel reservation by this date.  The Patent Workshop is specifically designed for entry-level patent practitioners with up to two years of patent drafting and prosecution experience.

The Patent Workshop is also being offered in Washington, DC on July 27-30, 2010.  The registration deadline for the DC program is July 20, 2010.

Read Full Post »

Patent Bar Review Question of the Week 4 (Part 2)

Earlier this week we asked you our fourth Patent Bar Review Question of the Week. Remember, this week’s question is closely patterned after Question No. 2 on the October 2000 afternoon exam session, with one added benefit: Mr. Gardner has modified the Patent Office’s Model Answer to accommodate Rules and MPEP changes that have been made since the question was first released. This added information will further help you understand and prepare for what may be asked on a future Patent Bar. Here’s the question (to remind you) followed by the US Patent Office’s “Model Answer” as well as detailed commentary and analysis from from Patent Resources Group’s Academic Director Paul Gardner.

Read Full Post »

Patent Bar Review Question of the Week 4 (Part 1)

This week on Patent Resources Group’s Patent Bar Review Question of the Week we’re giving you fresh information from Patent Resources Group’s Academic Director Paul Gardner. The question is closely patterned after Question No. 2 on the October 2000 afternoon exam session, with one added benefit: Mr. Gardner has modified the Patent Office’s Model Answer to accommodate Rules and MPEP changes that have been made since the question was first released. This added information will further help you understand and prepare for what may be asked on a future Patent Bar.

If you’re new to our series please check out our previous installments here:

• Question of the Week #1 Roundup
• Question of the Week #2 Roundup
• Question of the Week #3 Roundup

Read Full Post »

Patent Bar Review Question of the Week 3 (Part 2)

Earlier this week we asked you our third Patent Bar Review Question of the Week. Times up! Here’s the question (to remind you) followed by the US Patent Office’s “Model Answer” as well as detailed commentary and analysis from from Patent Resources Group’s Academic Director Paul Gardner.

Read Full Post »

(06/15/10) Patent Resources Group’s Industry-Leading Bar Review Course Comes to Boston Next Week

Alexandria, VA (June 15, 2010) – Patent Resources Group (PRG) will be offering its industry-leading Bar Review Course in Boston, Massachusetts at the Radisson Hotel Boston on June 21-25, 2010.  Attendees will receive instruction from PRG’s Academic Director, Paul Gardner, one of America’s leading patent law experts.  All attendees will receive free copies of:

• ExamWare®, our highly-acclaimed patent exam preparation software, which greatly enhances their chances of passing the exam
• Patent Practice, the best treatise on patent law, which both helps attendees study and teaches proven techniques for practicing patent law after passing the exam
• Passing the PTO Exam on Your First Try: The Latest Tips and Tricks for Success, a booklet that ensures attendees are totally prepared for the exam

Attendees at PRG’s Bar Review Courses receive the most comprehensive level of preparation possible, enabling them to both pass the exam and to practice their profession.  PRG’s next Bar Review Course classroom program will be offered in New York, New York on September 20-24, 2010.  A video course option is also available on DVD.

Here’s what attendees are saying about PRG’s Bar Review Course:

“Your course was exceptional.  I had taken PLI before your course and had no idea what I was doing.  A friend at work suggested your course and I could not have been more satisfied.” – John Laurence, Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman

“Paul Gardner was superb and deserves much credit for my success.  I can very honestly say that the ExamWare software was the difference between my successful experience and my previous, unsuccessful one.  By the time I took the actual exam it felt like taking a practice exam on your software’s interface.  Congratulations on a superior product!” – Paul Lewallen, Corning, Inc.

Read Full Post »

Patent Bar Review Question of the Week 3 (Part 1)

Brace yourself for the Patent Bar Review Question of the Week #3! Now that you’re braced, check out our previous questions, the US Patent Office’s “Model Answer,” as well as detailed commentary and analysis from from Patent Resources Group’s Academic Director Paul Gardner here:

• Question of the Week #1 Roundup
• Question of the Week #2 Roundup

Onto this week’s question!

Question of the Week No. 3 (Q and A 31 from October 2000 Exam, Morning Session):

Which of the following do not represent prior art?

Read Full Post »

Patent Bar Review Question of the Week 2 (Part 2)

Earlier this week we posited our second Patent Bar Review Question of the Week. Now that we’ve had time to rack our brains, here’s the question (to remind you) followed by the US Patent Office’s “Model Answer” as well as detailed commentary and analysis from from Patent Resources Group’s Academic Director Paul Gardner.

Read Full Post »

Patent Bar Review Question of the Week 2

We hope you enjoyed last week’s Patent Bar Review Question of the Week! Go here for the full question and analysis.

Each week we’ll be featuring a Patent Bar question from past USPTO exams, and inviting you to select the most correct answer. At the end of the week we will be posting the USPTO’s “Model Answer,” along with further , analysis from Patent Resources Group’s Academic Director, Paul Gardner.

This week’s question of the week:

Question of the Week No. 2 (Q and A 22 from April 2003 Exam, Morning Session):

On January 2, 2001, a registered practitioner filed a patent application with the USPTO for inventor Beck. The application includes a specification and a single claim to the invention which reads as follows:
1. Mixture Y made by the process Q1.

Read Full Post »

Patent Bar Review Question of the Week 1 (Part 2)

Earlier this week we introduced the new Patent Bar Review Question of the Week by posing our first question. Now that we’ve had time to ruminate on it, here’s the question (to remind you) followed by the US Patent Office’s “Model Answer” as well as detailed commentary and analysis from from Patent Resources Group’s Academic Director Paul Gardner.

Question of the Week 1 (Q and A 14 from October 2001 Exam, Morning Session):

Which of the following is not in accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure?

Read Full Post »

Patent Bar Review Question of the Week 1

It is my pleasure to introduce the new and improved Patent Resources Group Patent Bar Review Question of the Week series (boy isn’t that a mouthful!).

Each week we’ll be featuring a Patent Bar question straight from actual past tests, asking you to comment and try to guess the answer, and then posting the official answer at the end of the week. In addition we’ll post a detailed analysis from Patent Resources Group’s Academic Director Paul Gardner.

In addition to teaching several popular PRG courses, Mr. Gardner has an extensive background in patent practice:

Prior to joining Patent Resources, he was a partner in law firms in Los Angeles and Seattle. His practice included all phases of patent and trademark law, including prosecution and litigation, and serving as an expert witness in a number of patent and trade secret cases. While practicing in Los Angeles, he taught courses in patent and trademark law as an adjunct at the UCLA Law School and, while in Seattle, at the University of Washington and Seattle University law schools.

Without further ado, here’s this week’s question (stay tuned for the answer and in-depth analysis later this week):

Question of the Week 1 (Q and A 14 from October 2001 Exam, Morning Session):

Which of the following is not in accord with proper USPTO practice and procedure?

(A) A written description as filed in a nonprovisional patent application is presumed adequate under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in the absence of evidence or reasoning to the contrary.

(B) An examiner may show that a written description as filed in a nonprovisional patent application is not adequate by presenting a preponderance of evidence why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize in the applicant’s disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.

(C) A general allegation of “unpredictability in the art” is sufficient to support a rejection of a claim for lack of an adequate written description.

(D) When filing an amendment, a practitioner should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims.

(E) When there is substantial variation within a genus, an applicant must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.

For more information on how you can prepare yourself for the Patent Bar, please check out Patent Resources Group’s Patent Bar Review Course homepage where you can get information on upcoming dates and locations for the course, including Boston in June, New York in July, San Francisco in November, and Dallas in December. Those unable to attend can even take the review courses via extensive home study DVD course materials! No matter how you take the course, you’ll receive thousands of dollars of study material and software, an exceptional value.

The content of this post was provided by Paul Gardner. This post was edited by Chris Jagalla.

Read Full Post »