What are the requirements for invoking the exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B)?
To invoke the exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B), certain requirements must be met. MPEP 2155.02 outlines these requirements: “In order for the exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) to apply, the subject matter of the intervening disclosure must be the same as the subject matter of the inventor’s previous public disclosure.” The key requirements…
Read MoreWhat is the purpose of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b)?
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b), also known as an affidavit or declaration of prior public disclosure, serves to except an intervening disclosure as prior art. It can be used when: The subject matter disclosed had been publicly disclosed by the inventor or joint inventor before the intervening disclosure was made or effectively…
Read MoreHow can an applicant show that a disclosure was made by the inventor before an intervening disclosure?
How can an applicant show that a disclosure was made by the inventor before an intervening disclosure? To show that a disclosure was made by the inventor before an intervening disclosure, the applicant must provide evidence that establishes the inventor’s prior public disclosure. The MPEP 2155.02 outlines several ways this can be done: An affidavit…
Read MoreDoes the manner of disclosure matter for invoking the 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) or 102(b)(2)(B) exceptions?
No, the manner or mode of disclosure is not critical when invoking the exceptions under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) or 102(b)(2)(B). The MPEP clarifies: “The manner of disclosure of subject matter referenced in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b) is not critical.” This means: The subject matter doesn’t need to be disclosed in the…
Read MoreHow do species and genus disclosures affect the application of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) exceptions?
The relationship between species and genus disclosures can significantly affect the application of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) exceptions. The MPEP provides guidance on different scenarios: Inventor discloses species, intervening disclosure is genus: “If the inventor or a joint inventor had publicly disclosed a species, and a subsequent intervening U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO…
Read MoreWhat does ‘same subject matter’ mean in the context of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) and 102(b)(2)(B) exceptions?
The concept of ‘same subject matter’ is crucial in applying the exceptions under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) and 102(b)(2)(B). According to the MPEP: “The exceptions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) or 102(b)(2)(B) are only applicable when the subject matter of the intervening disclosure is the same as the subject matter of the earlier inventor-originated prior public disclosure.”…
Read MoreCan a portion of an intervening disclosure be excepted as prior art?
Yes, only a portion of an intervening disclosure can be excepted as prior art. The MPEP states: “Only the portion of the third party’s intervening disclosure that was previously in an inventor-originated disclosure (i.e., the same subject matter) is excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a).” This means that any part of the third…
Read MoreCan a partial disclosure be disqualified under 37 CFR 1.130(b)?
Yes, it is possible to disqualify only a portion of an intervening disclosure under 37 CFR 1.130(b). The MPEP provides clear guidance on this matter: Only the portion of the third party’s intervening disclosure that was previously in an inventor-originated disclosure (i.e., the same subject matter) is excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a).…
Read More