What are the requirements for a valid Joint Research Agreement under MPEP 2156?
According to MPEP 2156, there are three key requirements for a valid Joint Research Agreement (JRA): The subject matter disclosed must have been developed and the claimed invention must have been made by, or on behalf of, one or more parties to a joint research agreement; The joint research agreement must have been in effect…
Read MoreWhat is the purpose of a Joint Research Agreement (JRA) in patent law?
A Joint Research Agreement (JRA) in patent law serves to facilitate collaboration between different entities in research and development. The main purpose of a JRA, as defined in MPEP 2156, is to disqualify certain prior art that would otherwise be available under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). Specifically, the MPEP states: “The…
Read MoreHow can inherent characteristics be shown in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection?
Inherent characteristics can be shown in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection by using additional references or evidence to demonstrate that a feature, while not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference, is necessarily present. MPEP 2131.01 provides guidance on this: “To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such…
Read MoreHow does inherency apply to anticipation rejections in patent examination?
How does inherency apply to anticipation rejections in patent examination? Inherency is an important concept in anticipation rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102. It allows examiners to consider features that are not explicitly stated in a prior art reference but are necessarily present or naturally flow from the reference’s teachings. The MPEP 2131 states: “To serve…
Read MoreCan inherency be used in both anticipation and obviousness rejections?
Yes, inherency can be used in both anticipation (35 U.S.C. 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. 103) rejections. The MPEP explicitly states: “The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.” (MPEP 2112) Furthermore, the MPEP notes that concurrent…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between inherency in 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 102 contexts?
What is the difference between inherency in 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 102 contexts? The concept of inherency is applied differently in the contexts of 35 U.S.C. 112 (written description) and 35 U.S.C. 102 (anticipation): 35 U.S.C. 112 context: Inherency is used to determine if a property, function, or characteristic is necessarily present in…
Read MoreWhat is the “identical invention” requirement for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102?
What is the “identical invention” requirement for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102? The “identical invention” requirement for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102 means that the prior art reference must disclose every element of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently, in the same configuration as in the claim. As stated in the MPEP 2131: “A…
Read MoreHow do examiners determine the effective filing date for 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections?
How do examiners determine the effective filing date for 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections? Examiners determine the effective filing date for 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections by considering several factors: The actual filing date of the patent application Any priority claims to earlier applications The filing date of the earliest application that supports the claimed invention According…
Read MoreCan extrinsic evidence expand the meaning of terms in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection?
No, extrinsic evidence cannot expand the meaning of terms in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. According to MPEP 2131.01: “Extrinsic evidence may be used to explain but not expand the meaning of terms and phrases used in the reference relied upon as anticipatory of the claimed subject matter.” This principle is illustrated in the case…
Read MoreHow can extrinsic evidence be used to support a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection?
Extrinsic evidence can be used to support a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection in several ways, as outlined in MPEP 2131.01: To prove that a primary reference contains an “enabled disclosure.” To explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference. To show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent. The…
Read More