Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
The MPEP states that “The nonsecret use of a claimed process in the usual course of producing articles for commercial purposes is a public use.” However, it’s important to note that a secret use of a process, even if the resulting product is commercially sold, does not necessarily constitute public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
The key factor is whether the public could learn the claimed process by examining the product. If the process cannot be discerned from the product, then the commercial sale of the product resulting from a secret process does not qualify as public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
To learn more:
The MPEP clearly states that “The knowledge or use relied on in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejection must be knowledge or use ‘in this country.’” This means that prior knowledge or use outside the United States, even if widespread in a foreign country, cannot be used as a basis for rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
The MPEP cites the case of In re Ekenstam to support this interpretation. It’s important to note that despite changes made to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104 by NAFTA and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the phrase “in this country” in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) still refers only to the United States and does not include other WTO or NAFTA member countries.
To learn more:
MPEP 2132 – Pre – Aia 35 U.S.C. 102(A) (2)
The MPEP states that “The nonsecret use of a claimed process in the usual course of producing articles for commercial purposes is a public use.” However, it’s important to note that a secret use of a process, even if the resulting product is commercially sold, does not necessarily constitute public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
The key factor is whether the public could learn the claimed process by examining the product. If the process cannot be discerned from the product, then the commercial sale of the product resulting from a secret process does not qualify as public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
To learn more:
The MPEP clearly states that “The knowledge or use relied on in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejection must be knowledge or use ‘in this country.’” This means that prior knowledge or use outside the United States, even if widespread in a foreign country, cannot be used as a basis for rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
The MPEP cites the case of In re Ekenstam to support this interpretation. It’s important to note that despite changes made to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104 by NAFTA and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the phrase “in this country” in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) still refers only to the United States and does not include other WTO or NAFTA member countries.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
The MPEP states that “The nonsecret use of a claimed process in the usual course of producing articles for commercial purposes is a public use.” However, it’s important to note that a secret use of a process, even if the resulting product is commercially sold, does not necessarily constitute public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
The key factor is whether the public could learn the claimed process by examining the product. If the process cannot be discerned from the product, then the commercial sale of the product resulting from a secret process does not qualify as public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
To learn more:
The MPEP clearly states that “The knowledge or use relied on in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejection must be knowledge or use ‘in this country.’” This means that prior knowledge or use outside the United States, even if widespread in a foreign country, cannot be used as a basis for rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
The MPEP cites the case of In re Ekenstam to support this interpretation. It’s important to note that despite changes made to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104 by NAFTA and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the phrase “in this country” in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) still refers only to the United States and does not include other WTO or NAFTA member countries.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
The MPEP states that “The nonsecret use of a claimed process in the usual course of producing articles for commercial purposes is a public use.” However, it’s important to note that a secret use of a process, even if the resulting product is commercially sold, does not necessarily constitute public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
The key factor is whether the public could learn the claimed process by examining the product. If the process cannot be discerned from the product, then the commercial sale of the product resulting from a secret process does not qualify as public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
To learn more:
The MPEP clearly states that “The knowledge or use relied on in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejection must be knowledge or use ‘in this country.’” This means that prior knowledge or use outside the United States, even if widespread in a foreign country, cannot be used as a basis for rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
The MPEP cites the case of In re Ekenstam to support this interpretation. It’s important to note that despite changes made to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104 by NAFTA and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the phrase “in this country” in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) still refers only to the United States and does not include other WTO or NAFTA member countries.
To learn more: