How does anticipation apply to claims covering multiple structures or compositions?
When a claim covers multiple structures or compositions, anticipation can occur if any one of those structures or compositions is known in the prior art. The MPEP 2131 cites a Federal Circuit case: When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the…
Read MoreHow do admissions affect anticipation and obviousness determinations?
Admissions by an applicant can significantly impact both anticipation and obviousness determinations in patent examination. As stated in MPEP 2152.03: “A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another as ‘prior art’ is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless…
Read MoreWhat constitutes an admission as prior art in patent law?
An admission as prior art in patent law occurs when an applicant identifies the work of another as “prior art” in the specification or during prosecution. According to MPEP 2129, such admissions “can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP define “substantially the same” in the context of design patent anticipation?
The MPEP provides guidance on what constitutes “substantially the same” in the context of design patent anticipation. According to MPEP 1504.02: The mandated overall comparison is a comparison taking into account significant differences between the two designs, not minor or trivial differences that necessarily exist between any two designs that are not exact copies of…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP address the issue of hidden features in design patent anticipation?
The MPEP addresses hidden features in design patent anticipation similarly to functional features. According to MPEP 1504.02: When a claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over prior art, those features of the design which are functional and/or hidden during end use may not be relied upon to support patentability. This means…
Read MoreCan functional features be considered in a design patent anticipation rejection?
Functional features generally cannot be relied upon to support patentability in design patent anticipation rejections. The MPEP states: When a claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over prior art, those features of the design which are functional and/or hidden during end use may not be relied upon to support patentability. Additionally,…
Read MoreHow does foreign registration affect design patent anticipation in the US?
Foreign registration can significantly impact design patent anticipation in the US. The MPEP states: Registration of a design abroad is considered to be equivalent to patenting for priority purposes under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) – (d) and for prior art purposes pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d), whether or not the foreign grant is published. This means that…
Read MoreWhat is the standard for determining anticipation in design patent applications?
The standard for determining anticipation in design patent applications is the “ordinary observer” test. As stated in the MPEP: Under the ordinary observer test, ‘if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such…
Read MoreWhat does “anticipated by the prior art” mean in the context of novelty assessment?
In the context of novelty assessment for international patent applications, “anticipated by the prior art” refers to the situation where an invention is not considered novel because it has already been disclosed in the prior art. The PCT Article 33(2) states: “For the purposes of the international preliminary examination, a claimed invention shall be considered…
Read MoreHow does the concept of analogous arts apply to anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102?
The concept of analogous arts also has relevance in the context of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102. The MPEP provides a reference for this application: See MPEP § 2131.05 for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art in the context of 35 U.S.C. 102. (MPEP 904.01(c)) In the context of anticipation, the relevance of analogous…
Read More