What constitutes an admission as prior art in patent examinations?
An admission as prior art in patent examinations is a statement made by the applicant or their representative that acknowledges certain information as being part of the prior art. According to MPEP 2129, “A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another as ‘prior art’ is an…
Read MoreWhat precautions should patent applicants take regarding admissions in their applications?
Patent applicants should be cautious when making statements in their applications to avoid unintentional admissions of prior art. Based on the guidance in MPEP 2129, here are some precautions applicants should take: Be precise in language: Avoid characterizing your own work or others’ work as “prior art” unless you intend it to be treated as…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP address the use of admissions for both anticipation and obviousness?
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) addresses the use of admissions for both anticipation and obviousness determinations. MPEP 2129 states: “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.”…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between admissions and mere arguments in patent examination?
In patent examination, there is a crucial distinction between admissions and mere arguments. MPEP 2129 provides guidance on this matter: “Mere arguments or statements that a reference is not prior art are not admissions that it is prior art.” This distinction is important because: Admissions are statements that acknowledge certain information as prior art and…
Read MoreHow can an applicant’s own work be considered prior art through admissions?
An applicant’s own work can be considered prior art through admissions in certain circumstances. According to MPEP 2129: “Unless the admission is used as prior art, and the evidence is to the contrary, a statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another as ‘prior art’ is not…
Read More