How does the America Invents Act (AIA) affect the interpretation of experimental use?
The America Invents Act (AIA) has implications for how experimental use is interpreted in patent law. The MPEP 2133.03(e)(4) notes: “[This MPEP section may be applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See MPEP § 2159 et…
Read MoreHow does the AIA affect the relevant time for determining enabling prior art?
The America Invents Act (AIA) has changed the relevant time for determining enabling prior art. As noted in MPEP 2121.02: “For applications subject to the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA, the relevant time is ‘before the effective filing date of the claimed invention’. For applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102,…
Read MoreHow does the AIA affect the consideration of prior art timing?
The America Invents Act (AIA) has changed the relevant timing for considering prior art in patent examination. The MPEP 2141.02 notes: “For applications subject to the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA, the relevant time is ‘before the effective filing date of the claimed invention’. For applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.…
Read MoreWhat are the key changes to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 introduced by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)?
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) revised 35 U.S.C. 102 and thereby, the standard to determine what prior art is available during examination of an application. As stated in the MPEP, “The changes to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 in the AIA do not apply to any application filed before March 16, 2013.” This means…
Read MoreWhat is the impact of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 on the scope of prior art?
AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 has significantly expanded the scope of prior art that can be used in obviousness rejections. The MPEP 2158 explains: “AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 differs from pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in that AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 determines obviousness as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, rather than as of…
Read MoreHow does AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 affect the determination of obviousness?
AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 has modified the determination of obviousness in patent examination. The key changes include: Elimination of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), which provided a safe harbor for commonly owned prior art or prior art resulting from a joint research agreement. Introduction of a new prior art exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for…
Read MoreHow does AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 treat commonly owned prior art?
AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 has changed the treatment of commonly owned prior art in obviousness determinations. The MPEP 2158 states: “The AIA eliminated the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) safe harbor for subject matter commonly owned or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person at the time the claimed invention was made.” Instead,…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) in relation to disclosures?
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) plays a crucial role in determining whether certain disclosures qualify as prior art. According to MPEP 2152.04: “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and (b)(2), however, each state conditions under which a “disclosure” that otherwise falls within AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or…
Read MoreHow are affidavits used in computer programming patent cases?
Affidavits play a crucial role in computer programming patent cases, particularly when addressing enablement issues. The MPEP provides guidance on how these affidavits should be analyzed: The skill level and qualifications of the affiant should be critically analyzed in relation to the person of ordinary skill in the art. Affidavits must provide factual evidence to…
Read MoreHow do admissions affect anticipation and obviousness determinations?
Admissions by an applicant can significantly impact both anticipation and obviousness determinations in patent examination. As stated in MPEP 2152.03: “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, regardless…
Read More