How does the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) exception apply to U.S. patent documents?
The AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) exception applies broadly to U.S. patent documents. According to the MPEP: The 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) exception may possibly apply to any U.S. patent document, regardless of its potential prior art date under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). In other words, there is no grace period limitation to the applicability of the 35…
Read MoreWhat 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 MoreWhat is the difference between AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) prior art?
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) define two different categories of prior art: 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) covers disclosures available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. This includes patents, printed publications, public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) covers U.S. patents, U.S. patent application…
Read MoreWhat are the main categories of prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)?
Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), there are two main categories of prior art: AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1): This includes documents and activities such as issued patents, published applications, non-patent printed publications, public use, sale, or other public availability of the claimed invention. AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2): This specifically covers U.S. patent documents. The MPEP states:…
Read MoreHow does AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) differ from the Hilmer doctrine?
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) eliminates the Hilmer doctrine, which was applicable under pre-AIA law. The key differences are: Under the Hilmer doctrine, the effective filing date for U.S. patents as prior art was limited to their earliest U.S. filing date. Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d), a U.S. patent document can have an effective filing date…
Read MoreWhen does the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception not remove a U.S. patent document as prior art?
The AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception does not always remove a U.S. patent document as prior art. According to MPEP 2154.02(c): “The AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception does not apply to a disclosure that qualifies as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (disclosures made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention). Thus,…
Read MoreWhat are admissions in patent law?
In patent law, admissions refer to statements made by an applicant in the specification or during prosecution that identify the work of another as “prior art.” These admissions can be used by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as prior art for both anticipation and obviousness determinations. As stated in MPEP 2152.03: “A…
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 MoreCan admissions be used as a basis for establishing a substantial new question of patentability in ex parte reexamination?
Admissions, per se, cannot be the sole basis for establishing a substantial new question of patentability in ex parte reexamination. However, admissions can be used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications. The MPEP states: “An admission, per se, may not be the basis for establishing a substantial new question of patentability. However,…
Read MoreWhat constitutes an admission as prior art in patent law?
An admission as prior art in patent law occurs when an applicant identifies the work of another as “prior art” in the specification or during prosecution. According to MPEP 2129, such admissions “can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art…
Read More