When is a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit not an acceptable method to overcome a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection?
A 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit is not an acceptable method to overcome a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection in certain circumstances. According to the MPEP: “When the claims of the reference U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication and the application are directed to the same invention or are obvious variants, an affidavit or declaration…
Read MoreWhat is statutory double patenting?
Statutory double patenting is a rejection based on the requirement in 35 U.S.C. 101 that an inventor may obtain only one patent for the same invention. The MPEP explains: “35 U.S.C. 101 requires that whoever invents or discovers an eligible invention may obtain only ONE patent therefor. Thus, it prevents two patents issuing on the…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of discovering additional parties during an interference proceeding?
Discovering additional parties during an interference proceeding is significant because it ensures that all relevant claims to the same invention are considered. The MPEP 2307.04 states: “During the course of an interference, the examiner may come across applications or patents of parties that claim the same invention, but are not already involved in the interference.”…
Read MoreWhat is the definition of “same invention” in the context of patent interference?
In the context of patent interference, the “same invention” is defined by 37 CFR 41.203(a). According to MPEP 2304.04(a), when suggesting an interference, the examiner should include “an explanation of why at least one claim of every application or patent defines the same invention within the meaning of 37 CFR 41.203(a).” This regulation provides the…
Read MoreWhat types of patent documents might lead to the discovery of additional parties in an interference?
During an interference proceeding, an examiner may discover additional parties through various patent documents. The MPEP 2307.04 mentions: “During the course of an interference, the examiner may come across applications or patents of parties that claim the same invention, but are not already involved in the interference.” This indicates that the types of patent documents…
Read MoreWhat constitutes interfering subject matter in patent law?
Interfering subject matter in patent law occurs when the subject matter of one party’s claim would, if considered prior art, anticipate or render obvious the subject matter of another party’s claim, and vice versa. This is defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a), which states: “An interference exists if the subject matter of a claim of one…
Read MoreWhat is a continuation reissue application?
A continuation reissue application is a type of reissue application that is filed to pursue additional subject matter related to the same invention as the parent reissue application. Unlike divisional reissue applications, continuation reissue applications are not typically filed for “distinct and separate parts of the thing patented.” The MPEP states: A continuation reissue application…
Read MoreHow does the 35 U.S.C. 121 prohibition affect statutory double patenting rejections?
The 35 U.S.C. 121 prohibition does not affect statutory double patenting rejections. The MPEP clarifies: “The 35 U.S.C. 121 prohibition against certain nonstatutory double patenting rejections does not apply to statutory double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims to the ‘same invention.’“ In cases where the claims of the second application are drawn…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of ‘same invention’ in MPEP 715.01(a)?
The concept of ‘same invention’ in MPEP 715.01(a) is crucial for understanding when a prior art reference can be disqualified. The MPEP states: ‘If the rejection is based on a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication of a different inventive entity which claims the same invention or an obvious variant, and there is at…
Read MoreWhat is the ‘same invention’ requirement for claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120?
What is the ‘same invention’ requirement for claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120? The ‘same invention’ requirement is a crucial aspect of claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120. MPEP 211.01(b) explains: The second application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the first application. This means: The…
Read More