What is the impact of the AIA on design patent anticipation?
The America Invents Act (AIA) significantly changed the prior art provisions for design patent applications. For applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, the AIA’s first-inventor-to-file system applies. The MPEP provides specific form paragraphs for AIA applications, such as: The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [1] because the…
Read MoreWhat happens if a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b) is insufficient?
What happens if a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b) is insufficient? If a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b) is insufficient, the examiner will determine whether the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention are identical or if the subject matter disclosed is obvious over the claimed invention. As stated in MPEP 717.01(b)(1): “If the declaration…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103?
What is the difference between rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103? Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 serve different purposes in patent examination: 35 U.S.C. 102 (Anticipation): This rejection is used when a single prior art reference discloses every element of the claimed invention. As stated in the MPEP…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between anticipation and obviousness in patent rejections?
What is the difference between anticipation and obviousness in patent rejections? Anticipation and obviousness are two distinct grounds for rejecting a patent application based on prior art: Anticipation (35 U.S.C. 102): This occurs when a single prior art reference discloses all elements of the claimed invention. As stated in MPEP 2131, “A claim is anticipated…
Read More