Be sure to provide your exam number as indicated above. This is a two hour, open-book exam. You may consult written materials, but discussion is not permitted.

This exam contains 30 equally-weighted, true/false questions. Answer only 25 in the space provided. (If you answer more, I will grade only the first 25.) Explanations are unnecessary, but, if you feel compelled, please use the back of the page and be sure to indicate the question number.

1. Court review of PTO procedure in patent cases may be "non-statutory."

2. The CAFC generally reviews PTO fact determinations under the standard of F.R.C.P. 52(a).

3. Most PTO adjudications are informal; thus, the APA governs the process.

4. Under the APA, the standard of review for informal administrative adjudication and rule making is generally "substantial evidence."

5. The CAFC seems to defer to the PTO on issues of law more than on issues of fact.

6. The CAFC more often reverses the PTO in published than in unpublished patent decisions.

7. Challenges to PTO FOIA compliance are not subject to CAFC review.

8. The CAFC shares the capacity to review some administrative decisions with high executive branch officials.

9. The PTO OED often uses "informal" rulemaking to promulgate and update educational requirements for those wishing to sit for the patent exam.

10. It is generally better to challenge a rule at the time it is promulgated.

11. That PTO examining manuals bind no one is clear from Morton v. Ruiz.

12. It is generally agreed that PTO examiners are well qualified to evaluate the legality and economic viability of inventions.

13. Most PTO rule making is exempt from APA requirements.

14. A proposal to structure the PTO as a government corporation is fiscally motivated.

15. The Copyright Office evolves interpretations of its substantive legislation using much the same process as the PTO uses.

16. The Copyright Office's "rule of doubt" seems consistent with courts' having little control over the scope of copyright protection.

17. Adjudications of some copyright royalty disputes now fall within the explicit jurisdiction of the Librarian of Congress.

18. Challengers of a mark's registerability are very restricted in their ability to participate in PTO proceedings and intramural appeals.

19. That all PTO trademark decisions are subject to "statutory" review is highly doubtful.

20. Scientifically or technically trained attorneys have historically been in great demand in U.S. agencies that operate at "the frontiers of science and technology."

21. There is no way to extend a patent's term beyond seventeen years.

22. It is rarely possible to ask administrative decision makers for reconsideration before filing appeals.

23. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, trial courts must hold patent and trademark litigation in abeyance pending the outcome of related PTO proceedings.

24. A party need only show that an agency has failed to comply with one or more procedural requirements to prevail upon review.

25. Some decisions of the claims courts in favor of private parties require legislation before relief is actually forthcoming.

26. Animal Legal primarily found patent applicants to lack standing to challenge PTO failure to make a particular rule under § 553.

27. Giving an applicant the benefit of a "rule of doubt" is more likely to result in opposition under § 2(d) than under § 2(e) of the Lanham Act.

28. There is little basis for concluding that Chevron warrants the CAFC's giving great deference to PTO views of ambiguous substantive law.

29. 5 U.S.C. § 500 does not prevent any federal agency from disbarring attorneys.

30. No one believes that the Commissioner should have any power to influence the outcome of TTAB and BPAI decisions.