Antedating 102e reference guntersville dating

The prior art date of a reference under pre-AIA 35 U. See MPEP § 706.02(f)(1) for examination guidelines on the application of pre-AIA 35 U.

filing dates, including certain international filing dates. 102(e) may be the international filing date if the international filing date was on or after November 29, 2000, the international application designated the United States, and the international application was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Article 21(2) in the English language.

Each week, we succinctly summarize the preceding week of Federal Circuit precedential patent opinions. Applicants appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”).

We provide the pertinent facts, issues, and holdings. Their brief included a chronological listing of entries in the “Inventor Activity Logs” and “Inventor Intranet Site Activity Logs” to show diligence over a period of seven years.


157(c), a published SIR will be treated the same as a U. patent for all defensive purposes, usable as a reference as of its filing date in the same manner as a U.

The Examiner found the Declaration and exhibits insufficient to show conception and reduction to practice.

The Court found that the Board erred, and failed to comply with the purpose of the diligence inquiry.

Question asking who can sign a 1.132 petition showing that a previous invention was not by another. If the prior art is a foreign patent or app (it could even be owned by the same applicant or the same assignees) that was filed 12 months prior to the U. (715.04 who can file the 37 USC 1.131 affidavit) 1.

The subject matter of the question is “Application A” and “Patent X”. Also tested: Know what responses overcome certain rejections such as when 1.131 and 1.132 affidavit appropriate – MPEP 715.01. All of the inventors of the subject matter claimed 2.

PST also challenged the Board’s claim construction of “perforated.” The Board construed the term to include “passages.” The Court found error because the patent specification stated that the device “may be perforated or otherwise provided with passages.” The use of the disjunctive, therefore, excluded passages from the construction of perforated.

Thus, the Board’s finding of anticipation or obviousness was not supported.

Leave a Reply