|
Author |
Topic: correction of inventorship question (Read 3223 times) |
|
ray.nyls
Guest
|
 |
correction of inventorship question
« on: Dec 19th, 2007, 12:35am » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
someone who's studying for the exam, taken it, or just generally knos from practice - please help: oct 2000, am, Q19 - why in this situation continuation to correct inventorship appropriate and not by 1.48a? i read both 1.48 and mpep201.03, i'm sure i'm just missing something, but i don't see what distinction is made about when a continuation is appropriate over a 1.48a correction... it says "filing of a continuing application to correct the inventorship is appropriate if at least one of the correct inventors has been named in the prior application"... but 1.48 does not preclude correcting inventorship through a declaration where at least one inventor has been named in the application does it? so why do a continuation where more fees would apply? hope someone can point out what i'm apparently missing to see here... thanks much
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
BotchedExperiment
Newbie


Posts: 34
|
 |
Re: correction of inventorship question
« Reply #1 on: Dec 19th, 2007, 8:04pm » |
Quote Modify
|
PLI materials simply say that continuation is what the PTO "prefers". I guess that's why continuation is the "best" answer.
|
|
IP Logged |
Repeating experiments since 1998.
|
|
|
matt sty
Guest
|
 |
Re: correction of inventorship question
« Reply #2 on: Dec 21st, 2007, 9:06am » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
how do you get access to that exam, the October 2000 exam?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
ray.nyls
Guest
|
 |
Re: correction of inventorship question
« Reply #3 on: Dec 21st, 2007, 9:25am » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
avail for download on mypatentbar dot com i think, i've been on so many websites i honestly dont remember where i myself got them from, sorry - But I know this information is posted on this forum so if it's not where i'm suggesting juts look through some postings here you will find out...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
|