About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« An Analysis of the New Rules: 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(b): 5/25 Limit on Claims | Main | Forest Labs., Inc. v. Ivax Pharm., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2007) »

September 05, 2007


For a preliminary analysis of how a single application family may *not* in fact be limited to "a single request for continued examination (RCE) without a petition and showing", please see:


NIPRA has a new preliminary analysis on the possibility of obtaining extra RCEs in divisional families under 37 CFR 1.114(f)(3) (similar in some respects to our earlier analysis describing the possibility of obtaining two RCEs from parallel continuations). Comments, especially from those who feel comfortable sifting though the rules, would be *very* much appreciated before we make this page final. Thank you.


The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29