How is priority explained in an interference suggestion?
When explaining priority in an interference suggestion, the applicant must provide a detailed explanation as to why they will prevail on priority. This is required by 37 CFR 41.202(a)(4). According to MPEP § 2304.02(c), if the application has an earlier constructive reduction-to-practice than the apparent earliest of the other application or patent, the applicant may…
Read MoreHow does an applicant explain priority in an interference suggestion?
When suggesting an interference, an applicant must explain their priority position in detail. According to 37 CFR 41.202(a)(4), the suggestion must “Explain in detail why the applicant will prevail on priority.” This explanation can take different forms depending on the applicant’s priority position: If the applicant has an earlier constructive reduction-to-practice than the apparent earliest…
Read MoreWhat is a constructive reduction-to-practice in patent law?
A constructive reduction-to-practice in patent law refers to a description in a patent application that would have anticipated the subject matter of a count in an interference proceeding. According to MPEP 2304.02(c), “A description in an application that would have anticipated the subject matter of a count is called a constructive reduction-to-practice of the count.…
Read MoreWhat is a constructive reduction-to-practice in the context of interference?
A constructive reduction-to-practice in the context of interference refers to a description in an application that would have anticipated the subject matter of a count. MPEP § 2304.02(c) states: “A description in an application that would have anticipated the subject matter of a count is called a constructive reduction-to-practice of the count. One disclosed embodiment…
Read More