How does joint inventorship affect the “names another inventor” requirement?

In cases of joint inventorship, the “names another inventor” requirement under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is satisfied even if only one joint inventor is different between the prior art document and the application under examination. MPEP 2154.01(c) clarifies: “Thus, in the case of joint inventors, only one joint inventor needs to be different for the…

Read More

What is the relevance of the inventive entity in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejections?

The inventive entity plays a crucial role in applying pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejections. The MPEP states: “In order to apply a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), the inventive entity of the application must be different from that of the cited reference.” Importantly, for applications with joint inventors, the MPEP clarifies: “Note that, where…

Read More

How does a continuation-in-part application affect the “by another” determination under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)?

A continuation-in-part (CIP) application with an additional inventor can still be considered “by another” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The MPEP provides an example in MPEP 2136.04: “Ex parte DesOrmeaux, 25 USPQ2d 2040 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (The examiner made a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection based on an issued U.S. patent to…

Read More