A claim in a pending patent application stands rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being obvious over Kim in view of Lance. The Kim and Lance references are both U.S. Patents issued on respective applications filed before the date of the application in question. In the rejection, the primary examiner asserted that no determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art was necessary because the subject matter of the application and of Kim and Lance were so easily understandable; and that the Kim reference relates to the applicant’s endeavor. The examiner properly found motive in Kim and Lance for combining the references, but the motive would produce a benefit different from that offered by applicant’s invention. Neither reference teaches or suggests the ambiguous limitation. In the rejection under 36 USC 103(a), the examiner did not address an ambiguous limitation in the claim. However, the examiner separately rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph as indefinite due to the ambiguity. According to the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following arguments, if true, would overcome the rejection?


  1. Click on an answer to submit it. Don't click if you're not sure!
  2. For answers with images, you can click to enlarge it without submitting the answer.
Question Stats: 
Patent Bar Exam review questions
Question Difficulty Score (QDS):
Question Difficulty Rank (QDR):
Number of Answers:
1 (100.0% correct)
Relevance Rating:
0.0 (1 rating)