How is the timeliness of third party requester comments affected by service in inter partes reexamination?

The timeliness of third party requester comments in inter partes reexamination is directly affected by the service of the patent owner’s response. According to MPEP 2666.06: “35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2) mandates that, in order to be timely, a third party requester must file any written comments to the patent owner’s response (to an Office action on…

Read More

What is the timeline for preparing and reviewing an examiner’s answer in inter partes reexamination?

The timeline for preparing and reviewing an examiner’s answer in an inter partes reexamination proceeding is outlined in MPEP 2677. The key steps and timeframes are as follows: The examiner’s answer is to be completed by the examiner within two weeks after the appeal conference. After completion, the examiner obtains the initials of the appeal…

Read More

What is the significance of “at the time of the invention” in equivalence determinations?

What is the significance of “at the time of the invention” in equivalence determinations? The phrase “at the time of the invention” is crucial in equivalence determinations during patent examination. The MPEP emphasizes this temporal aspect: “[T]he examiner must … determine whether the assertedly equivalent element in the prior art or a reference would have…

Read More

How does the “time of invention” differ for AIA and pre-AIA applications in equivalence determinations?

The “time of invention” consideration differs for AIA (America Invents Act) and pre-AIA applications in equivalence determinations: For AIA applications: The relevant time is “before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” For pre-AIA applications: The relevant time is “at the time of the invention.” MPEP 2183 notes: “For applications subject to the first…

Read More