CANADIAN PATENT AGENT QUALIFYING EXAMINATION GUIDE TO WRITING THE PATENT AGENT EXAM PAPER B PATENT VALIDITY



Similar documents
CANADIAN PATENT AGENT QUALIFYING EXAMINATION GUIDE TO WRITING THE PATENT AGENT EXAM PAPER D PATENT INFRINGEMENT

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES. 1. This section includes the requirements for developing interview questions and identifying suitable responses.

INDIVIDUAL MASTERY for: St#: Test: CH 9 Acceleration Test on 29/07/2015 Grade: B Score: % (35.00 of 41.00)

INDIVIDUAL MASTERY for: St#: Test: CH 9 Acceleration Test on 09/06/2015 Grade: A Score: % (38.00 of 41.00)

University of Rochester Master s Degree in Computer Science

Patentability of inventions in the field of food industry: search and examination practice at the EPO

MKD UPDATES. Week 1, July M. K. Dandeker & Co. Prepared by: Sudarsan Nambiraghavan. Contributors: Irfan Abdul Ismail

Assessment Centres and Psychometric Testing. Procedure

In an experimental study there are two types of variables: Independent variable (I will abbreviate this as the IV)

University of Rochester Graduate Degree Program Assessment Plan

RELEVANT TO ACCA QUALIFICATION PAPER P7 AND PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES 17 AND 18. Completing the audit

Analyzing Research Articles: A Guide for Readers and Writers 1. Sam Mathews, Ph.D. Department of Psychology The University of West Florida

HISTORY KEY STAGE THREE

HIGH SCHOOL MASS MEDIA AND MEDIA LITERACY STANDARDS

PERSUASION CHECKLIST PERSUASION CHECKLIST

COMPETENCY MODEL FOR AIRPORT CHIEF INFORMATION SECURITY OFFICER CLASS CODE 1404

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING JAPANESE PATENT PRACTICE TABLE OF CONTENTS

ProTeach Portfolio Support Providers: Facilitating Connections. Evidence and Analysis

Reference Guide to Statutory Provisions and Final Rules Effective on September 16, 2012

History Graduate Program Handbook

The University of Adelaide Business School

Vermont Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Strategic Plan and Performance Measures

OF CPAB INSPECTION FINDINGS

PCT PRACTICE International Applications Filed Prior to January 1, 2004

Depth-of-Knowledge Levels for Four Content Areas Norman L. Webb March 28, Reading (based on Wixson, 1999)

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/304,776 11/26/2002 Jouni Ylitalo

H7M3 04 (SCDLMCE2) Lead the Performance Management of Care Service Provision

Publishers Note. Anson Reed Limited St John Street London EC1V 4PY United Kingdom. Anson Reed Limited and InterviewGold.

Canadian Electrical Code, Part I Full Impact Assessment

Guidelines for Master of Public Health Master's Essay

THE MANAGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL

Version /10. General Certificate of Education. Economics. ECON1: Markets and Market Failure. Mark Scheme examination - January series

Building Relationships by Leveraging your Supply Chain. An Oracle White Paper December 2001

Guide, Instructions and Commentary to the 2013 AIA Digital Practice Documents

CANADA Patent Rules as amended by SOR/

Legal professional privilege (section 42)

Talent Dashboard: A Tool to Support Talent Conversations

PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT)

HOW TO WRITE A THEOLOGICAL PAPER 1 Begin everything with prayer!!! 1. Choice of the Topic. 2. Relevant Scriptural Texts

University Centre at Blackburn College. Abbreviated Programme Specification Containing Both Core + Supplementary Information

THESIS GUIDELINES for MA in Theology and Ministry, MA in Pastoral Ministry, and MEd in Religious Education

Appendices WERKLUND SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

Aim To help students prepare for the Academic Reading component of the IELTS exam.

INTERNAL CONTROL MATRIX FOR AUDIT OF ESTIMATING SYSTEM CONTROLS Version No. 3.2 June d Page 1 of 7

BS Environmental Science ( )

Chapter 1800 Patent Cooperation Treaty

Section 11. Giving and Receiving Feedback

Exemplar Science Test Questions. Computer-Based Tests. discoveractaspire.org

The system: does NOT contain PII. If this is the case, you must only complete Section 13.

Guidelines for Conducting an APR Self-Study

Methods for Assessing Student Learning Outcomes

Rules Verification Checklist Historical Paper

Fractions as Numbers INTENSIVE INTERVENTION. National Center on. at American Institutes for Research

BTEC STUDENT HANDBOOK

Exhibit memory of previously-learned materials by recalling facts, terms, basic concepts, and answers. Key Words

PEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS VERSION 1 - REVIEW. Tatyana A Shamliyan. I do not have COI. 30-May-2012

What are some effective standards-based classroom assessment practices?

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium: English/Language Arts Practice Test Scoring Guide Grade 11 Performance Task

Introduction to PhD Research Proposal Writing. Dr. Solomon Derese Department of Chemistry University of Nairobi, Kenya

A Model Curriculum for Pennsylvania School Library Programs: Worksheet for Grades 6-8. Competencies What students should be able to do; key skills

The Open Group Certified Architect (Open CA) Program

STEM Program Certification Rubric for Middle School. STEM students are identified.

How to build a patent sales programme. Art Monk, TechInsights. Yearbook. Building IP value in the 21st century

Teacher Development Workshop ACCOUNTING GRADE 11

AP English Language Research Project Assignment Created by Sandy Jameson, Nazareth Area High School, 2013

Invention Disclosure Form

LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND Marking Scale and Descriptors

Pacifica Graduate Institute. Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology Program Goals and Student Learning Outcomes

MALAYSIAN INSTITUTE OF ACCOUNTANTS QUALIFYING EXAMINATION EXAMINER S REPORT (SEPTEMBER 2015) SUBJECT: BUSINESS AND COMPANY LAW

Title: Corporate Governance Policies. Approved by Board of Directors: February 25, Purpose. Board Composition. Director Appointment

Risk management systems of responsible entities: Further proposals

Task Requirements. Task 4 Implementing and Analyzing Instruction to Promote Student Learning

King s College London

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

Business Continuity Plan Template for Small Introducing Firms. [Firm Name] Business Continuity Plan (BCP)

GUIDELINES FOR PROGRAM REVIEW AND ACADEMIC PLANNING

Proposed withdrawal of the Charities SORP (FRSSE) and other matters impacting on charity accounts RESPONSE FROM ICAS TO THE CHARITIES SORP-MAKING BODY

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

Transcription:

CANADIAN PATENT AGENT QUALIFYING EXAMINATION PAPER B PATENT VALIDITY These guidelines describe in a general manner the contents and criteria for the Patent Agent Examination - Paper B. Specific content and rating is the responsibility of the Examining Board, based on their considered judgement. The actual contents of the Examination may change without notice and may differ from the contents of this general guidance document. CONTENTS: 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Examination Content 2.1 Part A Long Answer Questions 2.2 Part B Short Answer Questions 3.0 Mark Distribution 4.0 Scoring Appendix A - Examples of Legal, Analytical and Knowledge Issues

- 2-1.0 Introduction Paper B (Validity) of the Patent Agent Qualifying Examination measures the basic competencies necessary for a patent agent to deal with the legal issues of validity in respect to issued Canadian patents and basic skills for patent agency practice. The examination is four (4) hours in length. 2.0 Examination Content The examination consists of two (2) parts: PART A consists of long answer questions and tests a candidate s ability to provide reasoned opinions on claim validity issues (legal, analytical, knowledge). PART B consists of short answer questions and tests a candidate s general patent practice-based knowledge necessary to practice as a patent agent.

- 3-2.1 PART A Long Answer Questions What is tested and rated: IN PART A, candidates are rated on three categories of competencies: (1) Legal competencies that require the candidate to exhibit understanding of Canadian patent law, including case law, on the issue of claim validity and more specifically on the various grounds for attacking or defending the validity of claims, for example: reference applicability, anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, ambiguity, support by disclosure, etc.; (2) Analytical competencies that require the candidate to (a) exhibit understanding of the invention subject matter, claim construction and claim scope, to identify analytical issues necessary to deal with, for example: analyzing the effect of prior art on claim validity issues, (b) exhibit understanding of the disclosure content of prior art patents and explain how and why the prior art documents can be considered prior art (c) explain and predict given the fact patterns how specific sub-issues of claim validity will be dealt with by law; and (3) Knowledge competencies that require candidates to recall and explain how specific sub-issues of claim validity will be dealt with by law. Contents of PART A Part A contains questions relating to specific validity issues or scenarios. Questions elicit responses that require demonstration of the above three competencies. All questions are framed around a single patent under validity inquiry. A sampling of documents (which may or may not constitute applicable prior art) is also provided. The patent under scrutiny can contain more than one (1) independent claim.

- 4 - Questions can be set in the context of an opinion provided to a client. If so, candidates are specifically asked to provide recommendations and strategic advice whenever appropriate. Scoring is based on the candidate s reasoned opinions, suitable recommendations for further analysis as required (such as obtaining expert reports or reports from typical persons of skill in the art) as well as the discussion and strategic options provided. INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES You will be asked to prepare an appropriate response to each question/issue. Consider each question separately and independently of the other questions. Do not provide extraneous commentary if not directly relevant to question. For example, if the question requires a determination as to novelty, do not comment on other criteria such as utility, obviousness, etc. Note that statements of the pertinent law, analysis and argument are required to adequately address each issue. You may cite case law to support your reasoning, argument or position. Do not import your own technical knowledge into the response. Use only the technical data provided in the documentation provided. Appendix A provides a list of examples of issues that may be tested. Appendix A is NOT comprehensive. 2.2 PART B Short Answer Questions What is tested and rated: For the short answers component, the examination tests knowledge-based issues that are not linked or associated with the long answers component. Consider each question separately and independently of the other questions. Candidates are rated on the correctness and clarity of the answer and appropriate statutory or case law citation, when appropriate to the answer.

- 5-3.0 Mark Distribution PART A The long answer component represents 70-80% of the overall grade. PART B The short answer component represents 20-30% of the overall grade. 4.0 Scoring PART A Candidates are awarded marks for: - dealing correctly with key issue(s) - dealing correctly with all other issues - clarity of response/answers - organization and appropriate presentation of arguments, and - appropriate statutory or case law citation. PART B Candidates are rated on the correctness and clarity of the answer and appropriate statutory or case law citation, when appropriate to the answer.

- 6 - APPENDIX A Examples of Legal, Analytical and Knowledge Issues The following are examples of issues that may be tested. Appendix A is NOT comprehensive. ISSUE Prior Art Citeability of references Construction of Claims Prior Art Obviousness Prior Art Anticipation/Novelty Erroneous small entity status Case Law Statutory subject matter Claim covering inoperable emdodiments Claim overly broad in view of disclosure Claim indefinite Improper inventorship Lack of unity of invention