MPEP § 1002.02(f) — Petitions and Matters Decided by the Chief Administrative Patent Judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Annotated Rules)

§1002.02(f) Petitions and Matters Decided by the Chief Administrative Patent Judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

USPTO MPEP version: BlueIron's Update: 2026-01-17

This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 1002.02(f), including statutory authority, regulatory rules, examiner guidance, and practice notes. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only, it is not legal advice.

Petitions and Matters Decided by the Chief Administrative Patent Judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

This section addresses Petitions and Matters Decided by the Chief Administrative Patent Judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Primary authority: 35 U.S.C. 6, 35 U.S.C. 135(c), and 37 CFR 42.200(d). Contains: 9 statements.

Key Rules

Topic

PTAB Jurisdiction

5 rules
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-1002-02-f-618f573aa3353d70175ad24a]
PTAB Reviews Adverse Examiner Decisions and Conducts Patent Proceedings
Note:
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board reviews adverse decisions by examiners, handles ex parte reexaminations, derivation proceedings, inter partes reviews, and post-grant reviews.

3. Designation of members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to, on written appeal, review adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patents, review appeals of ex parte reexaminations, conduct derivation proceedings, conduct inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews, initially and on request for reconsideration. 35 U.S.C. 6.

Jump to MPEP SourcePTAB JurisdictionPTAB Contested Case ProceduresEx Parte Appeals to PTAB
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-1002-02-f-44c17dac2595f3791c25c0d5]
PTAB Must Review Adverse Examiner Decisions
Note:
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is required to review adverse decisions made by examiners regarding patent applications, ex parte reexaminations, derivation proceedings, inter partes reviews, and post-grant reviews.

3. Designation of members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to, on written appeal, review adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patents, review appeals of ex parte reexaminations, conduct derivation proceedings, conduct inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews, initially and on request for reconsideration. 35 U.S.C. 6.

Jump to MPEP SourcePTAB JurisdictionPTAB Contested Case ProceduresEx Parte Appeals to PTAB
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-1002-02-f-aaf0f351d1ec4a72a1884b10]
PTAB Members Designated for Interference Proceedings Determining Priority and Patentability
Note:
The Chief Administrative Patent Judge designates members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to conduct interference proceedings, including determining priority and patentability of inventions.

4. Designation of members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to conduct proceedings in an interference including the determination of priority and patentability of invention. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 6.

Jump to MPEP SourcePTAB JurisdictionPTAB Contested Case ProceduresPost-Grant Proceedings Under AIA
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-1002-02-f-b09addb51f7bfeb89cc68cfa]
PTAB Members Must Be Designated for Interference Proceedings
Note:
The rule requires that members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board be designated to conduct interference proceedings, including determining priority and patentability.

4. Designation of members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to conduct proceedings in an interference including the determination of priority and patentability of invention. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 6.

Jump to MPEP SourcePTAB JurisdictionPTAB Contested Case ProceduresAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-1002-02-f-c74a495536da2da00bb154ba]
Petitions for Interference Agreements and Access
Note:
Permits filing of agreements during interference and access to filed agreements.
7. Petitions under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(c):
  • a. Petitions under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(c) and 37 CFR 41.205(b) to permit the filing of an agreement or understanding during the 6-month period subsequent to termination of an interference.
  • b. Petitions under 37 CFR 41.205(d) for access to copies of an interference agreement or understanding filed under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(c).
Jump to MPEP SourcePTAB JurisdictionPTAB Contested Case ProceduresSettlement of Contested Case
Topic

Settlement of Contested Case

2 rules
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-1002-02-f-a3ba51ad292c22ca1aebd2a4]
Agreement or Understanding During Interference Termination Period
Note:
Permits filing of agreements or understandings within 6 months after interference termination under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(c) and 37 CFR 41.205(b).

7. Petitions under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(c) a. Petitions under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(c) and 37 CFR 41.205(b) to permit the filing of an agreement or understanding during the 6-month period subsequent to termination of an interference.

Jump to MPEP SourceSettlement of Contested CasePTAB JurisdictionPTAB Contested Case Procedures
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-1002-02-f-189f41425c6a1b01768edc64]
Petition for Access to Interference Agreement Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(c)
Note:
Permits petitioners to request copies of interference agreements or understandings filed under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(c).

7. Petitions under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(c) b. Petitions under 37 CFR 41.205(d) for access to copies of an interference agreement or understanding filed under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(c).

Jump to MPEP SourceSettlement of Contested CasePTAB JurisdictionPTAB Contested Case Procedures
Topic

AIA Effective Dates

1 rules
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-1002-02-f-2ca8a994130065f59af7a0c5]
Interference Before September 16, 2012 Must Be Dismissed Without Prejudice to Post-Grant Review
Note:
An interference initiated before September 16, 2012 must be dismissed in the interests of justice without prejudice to filing a petition for post-grant review.

2. Ordering, in the interests-of-justice, an interference commenced before September 16, 2012 to be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a petition for post-grant review. 37 CFR 42.200(d).

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 42.200(d)AIA Effective DatesKey Changes Under AIAPost-Grant Review (PGR)
Topic

Post-Grant Proceedings Under AIA

1 rules
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-1002-02-f-210cca08a8a06d002afa0449]
Interference Commenced Before September 16, 2012 Can Be Dismissed Without Prejudice to Post-Grant Review Petition
Note:
This rule allows for an interference commenced before September 16, 2012 to be dismissed without prejudice if a post-grant review petition is filed.

2. Ordering, in the interests-of-justice, an interference commenced before September 16, 2012 to be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a petition for post-grant review. 37 CFR 42.200(d).

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 42.200(d)Post-Grant Proceedings Under AIAPTAB JurisdictionPTAB Contested Case Procedures
Topic

Abandonment & Appeals

1 rules
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-1002-02-f-bede11aa4ead940d08992900]
Requests for Review of PTAB Decisions and Actions
Note:
This rule outlines various requests that can be made to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, including decisions on policy questions, reviews of non-compliant briefs, and petitions for extensions and revivals.
6. Requests related to superintending the functions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, including:
  • a. Requests for decision on a question of policy certified by a panel or an administrative patent judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 37 CFR 41.3(a).
  • b. Petitions to review a determination of a non-compliant brief. 37 CFR 41.37(d), 41.68(c), and 41.71(e).
  • c. Certification of a decision by a panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to disqualify counsel for cause in a trial proceeding. 37 CFR 42.10(d).
  • d. Extensions of pendency for a period of up to six months in an inter partes or a post-grant review proceeding. 37 CFR 42.100(c), 42.200(c), and 42.300(c).
  • e. Petitions under 37 CFR 1.181, 1.182, and 1.183 from actions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
  • f. Petitions for an extension of time for seeking rehearing in an ex parte appeal before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
  • g. Petitions to revive an application abandoned for, or an ex parte or inter partes reexamination terminated for, failure to file a timely corrected brief in reply to a Notification of Defective or Non-Compliant Brief. 37 CFR 1.137, 41.37, and 41.67.
  • h. Petitions to revive an inter partes reexamination terminated for failure to file a timely corrected Request to Reopen Prosecution in reply to an Order by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denying a request to reopen prosecution pursuant to 37 CFR 41.77(b)(1).
Jump to MPEP SourceAbandonment & AppealsInter Partes Reexamination AppealPTAB Jurisdiction
Topic

SNQ Criteria

1 rules
MPEP GuidanceInformativeAlways
[mpep-1002-02-f-87fcc31f210a65fae107f4c4]
Issues Relating to Examiner’s SNQ Determination Must Be Raised Properly
Note:
If raised properly during ex parte reexamination and in a subsequent appeal, issues relating to an examiner’s determination that a reference raises a substantial new question of patentability must be addressed.

1. If raised properly during ex parte reexamination and in a subsequent appeal, issues relating to an examiner’s determination that a reference raises a substantial new question of patentability. See 75 FR 36357 (June 25, 2010). This authority may be re-delegated to the panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board deciding the appeal in the reexamination.

Jump to MPEP SourceSNQ CriteriaAppeals in ReexaminationSubstantial New Question of Patentability
Topic

Appeals in Reexamination

1 rules
MPEP GuidancePermittedAlways
[mpep-1002-02-f-9fb02850e6e465a793f37641]
Appeal Issues from Ex Parte Reexamination to PTAB
Note:
Issues related to examiner’s determination of substantial new question of patentability in ex parte reexamination can be appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

1. If raised properly during ex parte reexamination and in a subsequent appeal, issues relating to an examiner’s determination that a reference raises a substantial new question of patentability. See 75 FR 36357 (June 25, 2010). This authority may be re-delegated to the panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board deciding the appeal in the reexamination.

Jump to MPEP SourceAppeals in ReexaminationPTAB JurisdictionPTAB Contested Case Procedures

Citations

Primary topicCitation
PTAB Jurisdiction
Settlement of Contested Case
35 U.S.C. § 135(c)
PTAB Jurisdiction35 U.S.C. § 6
Abandonment & Appeals37 CFR § 1.137
Abandonment & Appeals37 CFR § 1.181
PTAB Jurisdiction
Settlement of Contested Case
37 CFR § 41.205(b)
PTAB Jurisdiction
Settlement of Contested Case
37 CFR § 41.205(d)
Abandonment & Appeals37 CFR § 41.3(a)
Abandonment & Appeals37 CFR § 41.37(d)
Abandonment & Appeals37 CFR § 41.77(b)(1)
Abandonment & Appeals37 CFR § 42.10(d)
Abandonment & Appeals37 CFR § 42.100(c)
AIA Effective Dates
Post-Grant Proceedings Under AIA
37 CFR § 42.200(d)

Source Text from USPTO’s MPEP

This is an exact copy of the MPEP from the USPTO. It is here for your reference to see the section in context.

BlueIron Last Updated: 2026-01-17