The Subject Patent Already Has Underlining or ... - Bayhdolecentral
The Subject Patent Already Has Underlining or ... - Bayhdolecentral
The Subject Patent Already Has Underlining or ... - Bayhdolecentral
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
as of the date patent rights are granted. In re Kathawala,<br />
9 F.3d 942, 28 USPQ2d 1789 (Fed.Cir.1993).<br />
See MPEP § 2135 - § 2135.01 f<strong>or</strong> m<strong>or</strong>e inf<strong>or</strong>mation<br />
on 35 U.S.c. 102(d).<br />
2126.01 Date of Availability of a <strong>Patent</strong><br />
as a Reference<br />
PATE FOREIGN PATENT IS EFFECTivE AS'\'<br />
REFERENCE, IS" USUALLY .THE , pATE<br />
PATENT RIGHTS ARE FORMALLY AWARDED<br />
TO ITS APPLICANT<br />
<strong>The</strong> date the patent is available as a reference is<br />
generally the date that the patent becomes enf<strong>or</strong>ceable.<br />
This date is the date the sovereign f<strong>or</strong>mally<br />
bestows patents rights to the applicant. In' re Monks,<br />
588 F.2d 308, 200 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1978),<strong>The</strong>re is<br />
an exception to this rule when the patent is secret as of<br />
the date the rights are awarded. In re Ekenstam,<br />
256 F.2d 321, 118 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1958).<br />
Note that MPEP §901.05summarizes in tabular<br />
f<strong>or</strong>m dates of patenting f<strong>or</strong> many f<strong>or</strong>eign patents:<br />
Chisum, <strong>Patent</strong>s § 3.06[4] n.2 gives a good summary<br />
of decisions which specify reference availability dates<br />
f<strong>or</strong> specific classes of f<strong>or</strong>eign patents;' A copy of<br />
Chisum is kept in the law library of the Solicit<strong>or</strong>'s<br />
Office and in the Lutrelle F. Parker, Sr.,· Mem<strong>or</strong>ial<br />
Law Library located in CPKI-520:<br />
2126.02 Scope of Reference's Disclosure<br />
Which Can Be Used to Reject<br />
Claims Wbenthe Reference Is a<br />
"<strong>Patent</strong>"but Not a "Publication"<br />
OFTEN UNCLAIMED DETAILS FOUND IN<br />
THE PATENT SPECIFICATION CAN BE RE<br />
LIED ON EVEN IF PATENT IS SECRET<br />
When the patented document is used as a patent and<br />
not as a publication, the examiner is not restticted to<br />
the inf<strong>or</strong>mation conveyed by the patent claims but<br />
may use any inf<strong>or</strong>mation provided in the specification<br />
which relates to the subject matter of the patented<br />
claims when making a rejection under 35 U.S.c.<br />
102(a), (b) <strong>or</strong> (d). Ex parte Ovist, 152 USPQ 709, 710<br />
(Bd. App. 1963) (<strong>The</strong> claim of an Italian patent was<br />
generic and thus embracedthe species disclosed in the<br />
examples, the Board added that the entire specifica,<br />
PATENTABILITY 2126.01<br />
tion was germane to the claimed invention and upheld<br />
the examiner's 35 U.S.C. 102(b) rejection.); In re<br />
Kathawala.B F.3d942, 28 USPQ2d.1785 (Fed. Cir.<br />
1993) (<strong>The</strong> chums at issue where rejected under<br />
35 U.S.C.I02(d) by applicant's own parent afplica,<br />
tions in Greece and Spain. <strong>The</strong> applicant argued that<br />
the "invention ... patented in Spain was not the same<br />
'invention' claimed in the U.S. application because<br />
the Spanish patent claimed processes f<strong>or</strong> making<br />
[compounds f<strong>or</strong> itlhibition ofcholesterol biosynthesis]<br />
and claimsI and 2 were directed to the compounds<br />
themselv,es."9 F.3d at 944, 28 USPQ2d at 1786. <strong>The</strong><br />
Federal Circuit held that "when an applisant files a<br />
f<strong>or</strong>eign application fully disclosing his inventionand<br />
having the potential to claim hisinvention ill a Hum- '<br />
berof ways, the reference in section 102(d) to 'invention<br />
'" patented' necessarily includes all 'disclosed<br />
aspects of the invention." 9F.3d at 945-46,<br />
28 USPQ2d at 1789:)<br />
In re Fuge, 272F.2d 954,957, 124 USPQ 105, 107<br />
(CCPA 1959)"doeS not conflict with the abovedecisions.<br />
This decisionsimplystatest'that, at the least,<br />
the scope of the patentembraces everything included<br />
in the [claim]." (emphasis added),<br />
Note that the, courts have interpreted the phrase<br />
"invention .... pate!1\ed" in 102(a), (b), and (d) the,<br />
same way and have cited decisions without regard to<br />
which of these subsections of 35 U.S.C. 102 was at<br />
issue in the particular case at hand. <strong>The</strong>ref<strong>or</strong>e, it does<br />
not seem to matter to which subsection of102 the<br />
cases are directed; the court decisions are interchangeable<br />
as to this issue.<br />
2127 Domestic and F<strong>or</strong>eign <strong>Patent</strong><br />
Applicatipnsas Priol' Art<br />
I. AMNDONEDAPPLICATIONS,I1'ICLUD.<br />
ING PROVISIONAL APPLICATIONS<br />
AbaniimedApplicatlons Disclosed to the Public<br />
Can Be Used as Pri<strong>or</strong> Art '<br />
"An abandoned patent application may become evidence<br />
of pri<strong>or</strong> art only when it has been appropriately<br />
disclosed, as, f<strong>or</strong> example, when the abandoned patent<br />
[application] is reference[d]in the disclosure of<br />
another patent, in a publication, <strong>or</strong> by voluntary disclosure<br />
under [fomer Defensive Publication rule]<br />
37 CFR 1.139." Lee Pharmaceutical v. Kreps,<br />
2100-63 August 2001