How does the AIA’s first-inventor-to-file system affect the interpretation of “patented” under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)?

The America Invents Act (AIA) introduced the first-inventor-to-file system, which significantly impacts the interpretation of “patented” under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). The MPEP notes: “[This MPEP section] is only 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…

Read More

How does the AIA affect the on-sale bar in patent law?

The America Invents Act (AIA) made significant changes to the on-sale bar in patent law. According to MPEP 2152.02(d): “The pre-AIA on sale bar is not limited to sales or offers for sale that make the invention available to the public… [Under AIA] the sale must make the invention available to the public.” Key changes…

Read More

What is the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) exception?

The AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) exception is a provision in patent law that provides an exception to the prior art provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). As stated in the MPEP: AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) provides an exception to the prior art provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This exception limits the use of an…

Read More

Is absolute predictability required for a reasonable expectation of success?

No, absolute predictability is not required for a reasonable expectation of success in patent law. The MPEP 2143.02 states: “Obviousness does not require absolute predictability, but at least some degree of predictability is required.” This means that while complete certainty is not necessary, there should be a reasonable level of predictability that the proposed combination…

Read More

When can abandoned patent applications be used as prior art?

Abandoned patent applications can be used as prior art under specific circumstances: When they have been appropriately disclosed, such as being referenced in another patent’s disclosure, in a publication, or by voluntary disclosure. When they become publicly accessible. As stated in the MPEP: “An abandoned patent application may become evidence of prior art only when…

Read More

What is the “without deceptive intention” requirement for inventorship correction in reissue applications?

The “without deceptive intention” requirement is a crucial aspect of correcting inventorship through a reissue application. As stated in MPEP 1412.04: “Where one or more inventors are being added, it must be demonstrated that the error in inventorship occurred ‘without any deceptive intention’ on the part of the inventor being added.” This requirement means that…

Read More

What is a reissue patent?

A reissue patent is a mechanism to correct errors in an existing patent. According to 35 U.S.C. 251, a reissue patent can be granted “Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less…

Read More