JURI 645 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW QUIZ IP
2026/2027 | Liberty University School of Law |
Verified Q&A | Pass Guaranteed - A+ Graded
Section 1: Patent Law: Utility, Design, Plant Patents (Q1-15)
Q1. Dr. Chen files a provisional patent application for a novel pharmaceutical
compound on January 15, 2026. She later discovers that a competing research group
published a paper describing the identical compound on June 10, 2025. Under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), which statement is correct?
A. The prior publication is prior art because it predates the provisional filing by less
than one year, triggering the grace period.
B. The prior publication is not prior art because provisional applications establish an
effective filing date that retroactively negates earlier disclosures.
C. The prior publication is prior art because it was publicly available before Dr. Chen's
effective filing date, and the one-year grace period under § 102(b)(1) only applies to
disclosures made by the inventor.
D. The prior publication is not prior art because pharmaceutical compounds receive
special treatment under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
Rationale: Under AIA § 102(a)(1), a disclosure is prior art if it was "patented,
described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to
the public before the effective filing date." The grace period under § 102(b)(1) applies
only to disclosures made by the inventor or obtained from the inventor, not to
independent third-party publications. The competing group's publication predates
the filing and is therefore prior art.
Correct Answer: C
,Q2. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), the Supreme Court overruled
Chevron deference. How does this decision most directly affect patent prosecution
practice at the USPTO?
A. Patent examiners must now apply a de novo standard of review to all prior art
rejections.
B. Federal Circuit courts may no longer defer to USPTO claim construction standards,
potentially increasing litigation over BRI vs. Phillips claim interpretation.
C. The PTAB must grant all appeals from final rejections without substantive review.
D. Patent term adjustments are automatically extended by six months for all
applications.
Rationale: Loper Bright eliminated judicial deference to agency interpretations of
ambiguous statutes. In patent law, this means courts reviewing USPTO actions
(including PTAB decisions and claim construction disputes) will no longer defer to the
agency's statutory interpretations under the Chevron framework, increasing judicial
scrutiny of USPTO policies and potentially creating more litigation over claim
construction standards.
Correct Answer: B
Q3. An inventor files a non-provisional utility patent application on March 1, 2026,
claiming priority to a provisional filed March 1, 2025. The application contains claims
directed to a new machine, a method of using the machine, and a computer-
readable medium storing instructions for operating the machine. The examiner issues
a restriction requirement, asserting that the claims define three independent and
distinct inventions. Which response best preserves the applicant's rights under 37
C.F.R. § 1.141?
A. The applicant must elect all three invention groups and pay triple the filing fees to
maintain all claims.
B. The applicant must elect one invention for prosecution and may file divisional
applications for the nonelected inventions while the parent application is pending,
provided the claims are patentably distinct.
C. The applicant must abandon the application and refile three separate applications,
,losing the March 2025 priority date.
D. The applicant can overcome the restriction by amending all claims to depend from
a single independent claim.
Rationale: Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.141, when a restriction requirement is issued, the
applicant must elect one invention for initial prosecution. The applicant may then
pursue nonelected inventions through divisional applications filed while the parent is
pending, preserving the priority date. The inventions must be patentably distinct (not
obvious variants). Filing divisionals is the standard procedure; abandonment or fee
multiplication are incorrect.
Correct Answer: B
Q4. A software company develops an AI system that autonomously generates a novel
chemical compound structure with predicted therapeutic properties. The company
wishes to patent the compound. Under current USPTO guidance (February 2024
Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventions), which statement accurately reflects
patentability?
A. The AI-generated compound is unpatentable because only natural persons can be
inventors under Thaler v. Vidal (Fed. Cir. 2022).
B. The compound is patentable if a natural person made a "significant contribution"
to the conception of the claimed invention, even if AI performed the final generation.
C. The compound is automatically patentable because AI systems are legal persons
under the National AI Initiative Act.
D. The compound is unpatentable because chemical structures generated by AI lack
the written description requirement under § 112.
Rationale: The USPTO's February 2024 Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventions,
consistent with Thaler v. Vidal, requires that a natural person make a "significant
contribution" to the conception of the invention. If human researchers significantly
contributed to the conception (e.g., problem formulation, data selection, model
training), the AI-assisted invention may still be patentable with the human(s) listed as
inventor(s). AI cannot be an inventor, but AI assistance does not automatically
preclude patentability.
, Correct Answer: B
Q5. A design patent applicant files an application for a new ornamental design for a
smartphone case. The drawings show the case from six standard views. The examiner
rejects the application under 35 U.S.C. § 171, arguing that the design is primarily
functional rather than ornamental. Which argument would most likely overcome the
rejection?
A. The design provides a better grip, which is a utilitarian advantage that should
qualify for design patent protection.
B. The design includes ornamental features that are not dictated by functional
considerations, and the applicant can amend the specification to disclaim any
functional benefits.
C. Design patents are unavailable for smartphone accessories under the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act.
D. The applicant should convert the application to a utility patent because all product
designs are inherently functional.
Rationale: Under § 171, a design patent protects only ornamental designs, not
primarily functional features. However, if the design contains ornamental elements
not dictated by function, it may qualify. The applicant can overcome the rejection by
demonstrating that the design's appearance is not purely functional and by
disclaiming functional advantages in the specification. The better grip argument (A)
actually supports the examiner's position.
Correct Answer: B
Q6. A plant breeder develops a new variety of rose through traditional breeding
methods (not genetic engineering). The variety is stable, distinct, and uniform. The
breeder seeks IP protection. Which protection strategy is most comprehensive?
A. File only a utility patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because plant patents are limited to
asexually reproduced plants.
2026/2027 | Liberty University School of Law |
Verified Q&A | Pass Guaranteed - A+ Graded
Section 1: Patent Law: Utility, Design, Plant Patents (Q1-15)
Q1. Dr. Chen files a provisional patent application for a novel pharmaceutical
compound on January 15, 2026. She later discovers that a competing research group
published a paper describing the identical compound on June 10, 2025. Under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), which statement is correct?
A. The prior publication is prior art because it predates the provisional filing by less
than one year, triggering the grace period.
B. The prior publication is not prior art because provisional applications establish an
effective filing date that retroactively negates earlier disclosures.
C. The prior publication is prior art because it was publicly available before Dr. Chen's
effective filing date, and the one-year grace period under § 102(b)(1) only applies to
disclosures made by the inventor.
D. The prior publication is not prior art because pharmaceutical compounds receive
special treatment under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
Rationale: Under AIA § 102(a)(1), a disclosure is prior art if it was "patented,
described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to
the public before the effective filing date." The grace period under § 102(b)(1) applies
only to disclosures made by the inventor or obtained from the inventor, not to
independent third-party publications. The competing group's publication predates
the filing and is therefore prior art.
Correct Answer: C
,Q2. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), the Supreme Court overruled
Chevron deference. How does this decision most directly affect patent prosecution
practice at the USPTO?
A. Patent examiners must now apply a de novo standard of review to all prior art
rejections.
B. Federal Circuit courts may no longer defer to USPTO claim construction standards,
potentially increasing litigation over BRI vs. Phillips claim interpretation.
C. The PTAB must grant all appeals from final rejections without substantive review.
D. Patent term adjustments are automatically extended by six months for all
applications.
Rationale: Loper Bright eliminated judicial deference to agency interpretations of
ambiguous statutes. In patent law, this means courts reviewing USPTO actions
(including PTAB decisions and claim construction disputes) will no longer defer to the
agency's statutory interpretations under the Chevron framework, increasing judicial
scrutiny of USPTO policies and potentially creating more litigation over claim
construction standards.
Correct Answer: B
Q3. An inventor files a non-provisional utility patent application on March 1, 2026,
claiming priority to a provisional filed March 1, 2025. The application contains claims
directed to a new machine, a method of using the machine, and a computer-
readable medium storing instructions for operating the machine. The examiner issues
a restriction requirement, asserting that the claims define three independent and
distinct inventions. Which response best preserves the applicant's rights under 37
C.F.R. § 1.141?
A. The applicant must elect all three invention groups and pay triple the filing fees to
maintain all claims.
B. The applicant must elect one invention for prosecution and may file divisional
applications for the nonelected inventions while the parent application is pending,
provided the claims are patentably distinct.
C. The applicant must abandon the application and refile three separate applications,
,losing the March 2025 priority date.
D. The applicant can overcome the restriction by amending all claims to depend from
a single independent claim.
Rationale: Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.141, when a restriction requirement is issued, the
applicant must elect one invention for initial prosecution. The applicant may then
pursue nonelected inventions through divisional applications filed while the parent is
pending, preserving the priority date. The inventions must be patentably distinct (not
obvious variants). Filing divisionals is the standard procedure; abandonment or fee
multiplication are incorrect.
Correct Answer: B
Q4. A software company develops an AI system that autonomously generates a novel
chemical compound structure with predicted therapeutic properties. The company
wishes to patent the compound. Under current USPTO guidance (February 2024
Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventions), which statement accurately reflects
patentability?
A. The AI-generated compound is unpatentable because only natural persons can be
inventors under Thaler v. Vidal (Fed. Cir. 2022).
B. The compound is patentable if a natural person made a "significant contribution"
to the conception of the claimed invention, even if AI performed the final generation.
C. The compound is automatically patentable because AI systems are legal persons
under the National AI Initiative Act.
D. The compound is unpatentable because chemical structures generated by AI lack
the written description requirement under § 112.
Rationale: The USPTO's February 2024 Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventions,
consistent with Thaler v. Vidal, requires that a natural person make a "significant
contribution" to the conception of the invention. If human researchers significantly
contributed to the conception (e.g., problem formulation, data selection, model
training), the AI-assisted invention may still be patentable with the human(s) listed as
inventor(s). AI cannot be an inventor, but AI assistance does not automatically
preclude patentability.
, Correct Answer: B
Q5. A design patent applicant files an application for a new ornamental design for a
smartphone case. The drawings show the case from six standard views. The examiner
rejects the application under 35 U.S.C. § 171, arguing that the design is primarily
functional rather than ornamental. Which argument would most likely overcome the
rejection?
A. The design provides a better grip, which is a utilitarian advantage that should
qualify for design patent protection.
B. The design includes ornamental features that are not dictated by functional
considerations, and the applicant can amend the specification to disclaim any
functional benefits.
C. Design patents are unavailable for smartphone accessories under the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act.
D. The applicant should convert the application to a utility patent because all product
designs are inherently functional.
Rationale: Under § 171, a design patent protects only ornamental designs, not
primarily functional features. However, if the design contains ornamental elements
not dictated by function, it may qualify. The applicant can overcome the rejection by
demonstrating that the design's appearance is not purely functional and by
disclaiming functional advantages in the specification. The better grip argument (A)
actually supports the examiner's position.
Correct Answer: B
Q6. A plant breeder develops a new variety of rose through traditional breeding
methods (not genetic engineering). The variety is stable, distinct, and uniform. The
breeder seeks IP protection. Which protection strategy is most comprehensive?
A. File only a utility patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because plant patents are limited to
asexually reproduced plants.
