Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
(B) (1)
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is significant because it creates a statutory bar to obtaining a patent. According to the MPEP, If the publication or issue date of the reference is more than 1 year prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention (MPEP § 2139.01), the reference qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
This means that any public disclosure, such as a publication, patent, public use, or sale that occurred more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can prevent the issuance of a patent.
It’s important to note that there’s a grace period provision: Publications, patents, public uses and sales, however, will not bar a patent if the 1-year grace period otherwise ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday and the application’s U.S. filing date is the next succeeding business day.
To learn more:
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (3)
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is significant because it creates a statutory bar to obtaining a patent. According to the MPEP, If the publication or issue date of the reference is more than 1 year prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention (MPEP § 2139.01), the reference qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
This means that any public disclosure, such as a publication, patent, public use, or sale that occurred more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can prevent the issuance of a patent.
It’s important to note that there’s a grace period provision: Publications, patents, public uses and sales, however, will not bar a patent if the 1-year grace period otherwise ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday and the application’s U.S. filing date is the next succeeding business day.
To learn more:
Yes, an inventor’s own work can be used as prior art against their patent application under certain circumstances. According to MPEP 2133.02:
“Any invention described in a printed publication more than one year prior to the date of a patent application is prior art under Section 102(b), even if the printed publication was authored by the patent applicant.”
This means that if an inventor publicly discloses their invention (through a publication, public use, or sale) more than one year before filing a patent application, that disclosure can be used as prior art against their own application. This creates a statutory bar to patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
To learn more:
The In re Elsner case, as discussed in MPEP 2121.03, is significant for plant patents as it establishes criteria for when a combination of facts and events can constitute a statutory bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP states:
“The court held that when (i) a publication identifies claimed the plant, (ii) a foreign sale occurs that puts one of ordinary skill in the art in possession of the plant itself, and (iii) such possession permits asexual reproduction of the plant without undue experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art, then that combination of facts and events directly conveys the essential knowledge of the invention and constitutes a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) statutory bar.”
This case highlights the importance of considering foreign sales and publications in determining prior art for plant patents, especially when they enable asexual reproduction of the plant.
To learn more:
MPEP 2121.03 – Plant Genetics — What Constitutes Enabling Prior Art (1)
The In re Elsner case, as discussed in MPEP 2121.03, is significant for plant patents as it establishes criteria for when a combination of facts and events can constitute a statutory bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP states:
“The court held that when (i) a publication identifies claimed the plant, (ii) a foreign sale occurs that puts one of ordinary skill in the art in possession of the plant itself, and (iii) such possession permits asexual reproduction of the plant without undue experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art, then that combination of facts and events directly conveys the essential knowledge of the invention and constitutes a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) statutory bar.”
This case highlights the importance of considering foreign sales and publications in determining prior art for plant patents, especially when they enable asexual reproduction of the plant.
To learn more:
MPEP 2133.02 – Rejections Based On Publications And Patents (1)
Yes, an inventor’s own work can be used as prior art against their patent application under certain circumstances. According to MPEP 2133.02:
“Any invention described in a printed publication more than one year prior to the date of a patent application is prior art under Section 102(b), even if the printed publication was authored by the patent applicant.”
This means that if an inventor publicly discloses their invention (through a publication, public use, or sale) more than one year before filing a patent application, that disclosure can be used as prior art against their own application. This creates a statutory bar to patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
To learn more:
MPEP 2139.02 – Determining Whether To Apply Pre – Aia 35 U.S.C. 102(A) (1)
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is significant because it creates a statutory bar to obtaining a patent. According to the MPEP, If the publication or issue date of the reference is more than 1 year prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention (MPEP § 2139.01), the reference qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
This means that any public disclosure, such as a publication, patent, public use, or sale that occurred more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can prevent the issuance of a patent.
It’s important to note that there’s a grace period provision: Publications, patents, public uses and sales, however, will not bar a patent if the 1-year grace period otherwise ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday and the application’s U.S. filing date is the next succeeding business day.
To learn more:
Or (E) (1)
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is significant because it creates a statutory bar to obtaining a patent. According to the MPEP, If the publication or issue date of the reference is more than 1 year prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention (MPEP § 2139.01), the reference qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
This means that any public disclosure, such as a publication, patent, public use, or sale that occurred more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can prevent the issuance of a patent.
It’s important to note that there’s a grace period provision: Publications, patents, public uses and sales, however, will not bar a patent if the 1-year grace period otherwise ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday and the application’s U.S. filing date is the next succeeding business day.
To learn more:
Patent Law (3)
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is significant because it creates a statutory bar to obtaining a patent. According to the MPEP, If the publication or issue date of the reference is more than 1 year prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention (MPEP § 2139.01), the reference qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
This means that any public disclosure, such as a publication, patent, public use, or sale that occurred more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can prevent the issuance of a patent.
It’s important to note that there’s a grace period provision: Publications, patents, public uses and sales, however, will not bar a patent if the 1-year grace period otherwise ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday and the application’s U.S. filing date is the next succeeding business day.
To learn more:
Yes, an inventor’s own work can be used as prior art against their patent application under certain circumstances. According to MPEP 2133.02:
“Any invention described in a printed publication more than one year prior to the date of a patent application is prior art under Section 102(b), even if the printed publication was authored by the patent applicant.”
This means that if an inventor publicly discloses their invention (through a publication, public use, or sale) more than one year before filing a patent application, that disclosure can be used as prior art against their own application. This creates a statutory bar to patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
To learn more:
The In re Elsner case, as discussed in MPEP 2121.03, is significant for plant patents as it establishes criteria for when a combination of facts and events can constitute a statutory bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP states:
“The court held that when (i) a publication identifies claimed the plant, (ii) a foreign sale occurs that puts one of ordinary skill in the art in possession of the plant itself, and (iii) such possession permits asexual reproduction of the plant without undue experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art, then that combination of facts and events directly conveys the essential knowledge of the invention and constitutes a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) statutory bar.”
This case highlights the importance of considering foreign sales and publications in determining prior art for plant patents, especially when they enable asexual reproduction of the plant.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (3)
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is significant because it creates a statutory bar to obtaining a patent. According to the MPEP, If the publication or issue date of the reference is more than 1 year prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention (MPEP § 2139.01), the reference qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
This means that any public disclosure, such as a publication, patent, public use, or sale that occurred more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can prevent the issuance of a patent.
It’s important to note that there’s a grace period provision: Publications, patents, public uses and sales, however, will not bar a patent if the 1-year grace period otherwise ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday and the application’s U.S. filing date is the next succeeding business day.
To learn more:
Yes, an inventor’s own work can be used as prior art against their patent application under certain circumstances. According to MPEP 2133.02:
“Any invention described in a printed publication more than one year prior to the date of a patent application is prior art under Section 102(b), even if the printed publication was authored by the patent applicant.”
This means that if an inventor publicly discloses their invention (through a publication, public use, or sale) more than one year before filing a patent application, that disclosure can be used as prior art against their own application. This creates a statutory bar to patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
To learn more:
The In re Elsner case, as discussed in MPEP 2121.03, is significant for plant patents as it establishes criteria for when a combination of facts and events can constitute a statutory bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP states:
“The court held that when (i) a publication identifies claimed the plant, (ii) a foreign sale occurs that puts one of ordinary skill in the art in possession of the plant itself, and (iii) such possession permits asexual reproduction of the plant without undue experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art, then that combination of facts and events directly conveys the essential knowledge of the invention and constitutes a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) statutory bar.”
This case highlights the importance of considering foreign sales and publications in determining prior art for plant patents, especially when they enable asexual reproduction of the plant.
To learn more: