How can an inventor prove a prior public disclosure for the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) exception?
To prove a prior public disclosure for the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) exception, inventors can use affidavits or declarations. The MPEP provides guidance on this: “MPEP § 2155.02 discusses the use of affidavits or declarations to show a prior public disclosure of the subject matter by the inventor or a joint inventor, and MPEP §…
Read MoreHow can an inventor prove a previous public disclosure to invoke the exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A)?
To prove a previous public disclosure and invoke the exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A), an inventor must provide evidence that demonstrates the disclosure occurred before the date of the potential prior art being used against their application. According to MPEP 2155.02: “The previous public disclosure by the inventor or a joint inventor establishes that…
Read MoreHow can an applicant prove a disclosure is an inventor-originated disclosure?
An applicant can prove a disclosure is an inventor-originated disclosure in several ways, depending on whether it’s apparent from the disclosure itself or requires additional evidence. According to MPEP 2153.01(a): Apparent from the disclosure: If the disclosure names the inventor or a joint inventor as an author and was made within the grace period, it…
Read MoreHow can an applicant show that a disclosure was made by the inventor before an intervening disclosure?
How can an applicant show that a disclosure was made by the inventor before an intervening disclosure? To show that a disclosure was made by the inventor before an intervening disclosure, the applicant must provide evidence that establishes the inventor’s prior public disclosure. The MPEP 2155.02 outlines several ways this can be done: An affidavit…
Read MoreHow does prosecution laches differ from statutory time limits in patent applications?
Prosecution laches is distinct from statutory time limits in patent applications. While statutory time limits are fixed by law, prosecution laches is a doctrine that addresses unreasonable and unexplained delays in prosecution. According to MPEP 2190: “While there are no firm guidelines for determining when laches is triggered, it applies only in egregious cases of…
Read MoreHow does the prosecution history affect preamble interpretation in patent claims?
The prosecution history plays a crucial role in determining whether a preamble limits the scope of a claim. According to MPEP 2111.02, “Clear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art transforms the preamble into a claim limitation because such reliance indicates use of the preamble to define,…
Read MoreCan the prosecution history affect how the preamble is interpreted?
Yes, the prosecution history can significantly affect how the preamble is interpreted. According to MPEP 2111.02: “[C]lear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art transforms the preamble into a claim limitation because such reliance indicates use of the preamble to define, in part, the claimed invention.” This…
Read MoreHow does the prosecution history affect claim interpretation during examination?
The prosecution history plays a crucial role in claim interpretation during patent examination. According to MPEP 2111: “The prosecution history of the patent or application under examination (hereafter referred to as ‘the prosecution history’) (including the disclosures of all related patents and applications) should be consulted when considering the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.”…
Read MoreHow does the prosecution history affect claim interpretation under BRI?
The prosecution history plays a significant role in claim interpretation under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard. MPEP 2111 states: “The prosecution history of the application is relevant to determining the meaning of the claims.” This means that statements made by the applicant during prosecution, including amendments and arguments, can limit the scope of claim…
Read MoreCan the proportions of features in patent drawings be used as evidence?
Generally, the proportions of features in patent drawings cannot be relied upon as evidence unless the drawings are explicitly stated to be to scale. The MPEP 2125 states: “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are…
Read More