<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: USPTO Patent Rule Changes &#8211; Actions to Take Right Now</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ipspotlight.com/2007/08/24/uspto-patent-rule-changes-actions-to-take-right-now/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ipspotlight.com/2007/08/24/uspto-patent-rule-changes-actions-to-take-right-now/</link>
	<description>News from the intersection of intellectual property and business law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:48:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://ipspotlight.com/2007/08/24/uspto-patent-rule-changes-actions-to-take-right-now/#comment-134</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:53:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipspotlight.com/2007/08/24/uspto-patent-rule-changes-actions-to-take-right-now/#comment-134</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Based on information that I&#039;ve seen from the USPTO, divisionals are permitted once the non-elected claims are cancelled.  However, if the non-elected claims are still pending (which would be the case if they were merely withdrawn and not cancelled), then a divisional will not get the benefit of its parent&#039;s priority date.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Based on information that I&#8217;ve seen from the USPTO, divisionals are permitted once the non-elected claims are cancelled.  However, if the non-elected claims are still pending (which would be the case if they were merely withdrawn and not cancelled), then a divisional will not get the benefit of its parent&#8217;s priority date.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://ipspotlight.com/2007/08/24/uspto-patent-rule-changes-actions-to-take-right-now/#comment-104</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:54:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipspotlight.com/2007/08/24/uspto-patent-rule-changes-actions-to-take-right-now/#comment-104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As a new patent attorney, (I have been an agent for a few years) I have a few questions about the new rules that I would like comments on from the patent bar. Feel free to post the following for responses.
 
1. In a family with multiple after final cases, would it be desirable to file RCE&#039;s prior to Nov. 1? 

2a. Can you withdraw a traversal? 
2b. Is a withdrawal of traversal of a restriction requirement, where election has previously been made, effective to make restriction final, such that under the new rules multiple divisionals are then permitted in cases without a first office action on the merits yet?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a new patent attorney, (I have been an agent for a few years) I have a few questions about the new rules that I would like comments on from the patent bar. Feel free to post the following for responses.</p>
<p>1. In a family with multiple after final cases, would it be desirable to file RCE&#8217;s prior to Nov. 1? </p>
<p>2a. Can you withdraw a traversal?<br />
2b. Is a withdrawal of traversal of a restriction requirement, where election has previously been made, effective to make restriction final, such that under the new rules multiple divisionals are then permitted in cases without a first office action on the merits yet?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

