Can a reexamination proceed if the patent owner can’t be contacted?
Yes, a reexamination can proceed even if the patent owner cannot be contacted. The USPTO has provisions in place to ensure that the process continues through the use of constructive notice. MPEP 2230 clearly states: “If all efforts to correspond with the patent owner fail, the reexamination proceeding will proceed without actual notice to the…
Read MoreHow does reduction to practice relate to the on-sale bar in patent law?
Reduction to practice and the on-sale bar are closely related concepts in patent law, particularly in determining the critical date for patentability. The MPEP 2138.05 does not directly address this relationship, but it’s important to understand their interaction: The on-sale bar, codified in 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), prevents patenting an invention that was on sale more…
Read MoreIs reduction to practice necessary to be considered an inventor?
According to the MPEP, reduction to practice is generally not required to be considered an inventor. The focus is on conception of the invention. The MPEP states: “Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually contributed to the conception of…
Read MoreHow does reduction to practice affect the determination of inventorship?
Reduction to practice plays a crucial role in determining inventorship, particularly in cases of competing inventors. The MPEP 2138.05 provides guidance on this matter: “The inventor of the subject matter of a patent is presumed to be the individual or individuals named as inventors in the patent. In order to rebut this presumption, clear and…
Read MoreWhat is a redacted application publication in patent law?
A redacted application publication is a special type of patent application publication where certain information has been removed or obscured. MPEP 2154.01(d) mentions redacted publications in the context of provisional rejections: “[A] provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) may be made, in the circumstances described below, if the earlier filed, pending application has been published…
Read MoreHow are telephone calls recorded in inter partes reexamination proceedings?
When the USPTO makes a telephone call during an inter partes reexamination proceeding, it must be properly documented. The MPEP 2685 states: “If the party is reached by telephone and the matter is resolved, then the next Office communication as may be appropriate (e.g., Office action, NIRC) should make the telephone call of record. Any…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of keeping records during experimental use?
What is the significance of keeping records during experimental use? Keeping detailed records during experimental use is crucial for inventors seeking to protect their patent rights. According to MPEP 2133.03(e), whether records were kept is one of the factors considered in determining if an activity qualifies as experimental use. Good record-keeping serves multiple purposes: It…
Read MoreWhat is the rebuttable presumption of identity in patent law?
The rebuttable presumption of identity in patent law refers to the USPTO’s assumption that a replacement deposit is identical to the original deposit. This concept is explained in MPEP 2407.04: “37 CFR 1.805(e) indicates that the Office will apply a rebuttable presumption of identity between the replacement deposit and an original deposit where a patent…
Read MoreWhat is the “reasonable expectation of success” requirement in patent law?
The “reasonable expectation of success” requirement is a crucial element in determining obviousness in patent law. According to MPEP 2143.02, “Where there is a reason to modify or combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, the claims may be rejected as prima facie obvious provided there is also a reasonable expectation of success.”…
Read MoreWhat does “ready for patenting” mean in the context of the on sale bar?
The phrase “ready for patenting” is a key component of the two-part test established by the Supreme Court in Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. for determining whether an invention is “on sale” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). An invention is considered “ready for patenting” when it is either: Reduced to practice; or Depicted in drawings…
Read More