|
|
Author |
Topic: Working for the USPTO (Read 449611 times) |
|
guest123
Guest
|
 |
Re: Working for the USPTO
« Reply #1250 on: Dec 18th, 2007, 6:27pm » |
 Quote  Modify
 Remove
|
mk1023,
I have a question on Provisional Obviousness-type Double Patenting:
If a copending application has an earlier fileing date than the instant application, can I (and must I) use the copending application as a prior art and make a 102(e) rejection AND a 103(a) rejection, in addition to a rejection on provisional ODP ?
Thank you for your help.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
guest123
Guest
|
|
Re: Working for the USPTO
« Reply #1251 on: Dec 18th, 2007, 6:32pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
mk1023,
I have a question on Provisional Obviousness-type Double Patenting:
If a copending application has an earlier fileing date than the instant application, can I (and must I) use the copending application as a prior art and make a 102(e) rejection AND a 103(a) rejection, in addition to a rejection on provisional ODP ?
Thank you for your help.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
guest123
Guest
|
|
Re: Working for the USPTO
« Reply #1252 on: Dec 18th, 2007, 6:36pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
Apology for Double-posting.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
fizziks
Newbie
Posts: 5
|
|
Re: Working for the USPTO
« Reply #1253 on: Dec 19th, 2007, 11:27am » |
Quote Modify
|
Ok, are they just hiring for computer engineer examiners for the rest of the 2008 fiscal year now? I contacted practically everyone in every area and they told me they were done hiring for the year since sept/oct and kept referring me to the computer engineer area.
Then why the hell are there still job postings for other areas on usajob dot com? Kinda misleading and it should be taken down since all those positions were filled over 3 months ago.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
justaguest
Guest
|
|
Re: Working for the USPTO
« Reply #1254 on: Dec 20th, 2007, 7:31pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
You haven't given us much to go on, but whether something is earlier filed doesn't matter in PODP land. It can be later filed and you still need to make the PODP if there is one common inventor or assignee. If you find an earlier filed PDOP, it might also be a 102e, depending on the scope of the claims. Don't just rely on a PGPUB. Check to see whether the claims have been amended or withdrawn because of a restriction requirement. Also make sure there is no restriction requirement stating that the claims in your case and the copending case are patentably distinct, especially if the applications share a related family history.
Why the 103a? If you can use it as a 102e reference, you can (but don't have to use it in a 103(a)). Just remember that an applicant can get around a 102e date in a 103a, but you still have to put it on the record and let them respond.
Keep a copy of the ODP (chapter 800) and 102e (chapter 700) flowcharts close by and you shouldn't have these kinds of concerns in the future.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print