What is the significance of inventorship in continuation-in-part applications?
Inventorship in continuation-in-part (CIP) applications has unique implications for prior art determination. The MPEP 2136.04 states:
“If the application is a continuation-in-part of, or claims the benefit of the filing date of, a parent application naming A as the inventor, and the parent application was filed by A with a claim that was originally invented by B, the parent application is ‘by another’ as to that claim.”
This means that in CIP applications, the inventorship of specific claims can affect whether the parent application qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). It’s crucial to carefully examine the inventorship of individual claims in these cases.
To learn more:
Topics:
MPEP 2100 - Patentability,
MPEP 2136.04 - Different Inventive Entity; Meaning Of "By Another",
Patent Law,
Patent Procedure