The Intellectual Property Law Server

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Aug 20th, 2019, 8:53am

Forums Forums Help Help Search Search Members Members Calendar Calendar Login Login Register Register
   Intellectual Property Forums
  
  
Obviousness
(Moderators: Forum Admin, JimIvey, JSonnabend)
   103 Rejection and "by another"
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2 3  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: 103 Rejection and "by another"  (Read 5104 times)
Isaac
Senior Member
****




   


Posts: 3472
Re: 103 Rejection and "by another"
« Reply #10 on: Sep 12th, 2007, 5:38pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Sep 12th, 2007, 4:12pm, michael73 wrote:
The 103(a) rejection is based on our previous application + another prior art reference, from which the examiner takes an element to combine with our previous application. does patent law make it easier to "improve your OWN previous inventions", thus easier to pass 103(a)?
 
thanks Michael

 
There is the provision of 103(c) that allows you to exclude some 102efg references from obviousness determinations, and thus giving you time to submit obvious improvements to your own inventions.   But 103(c) does not apply if the reference in question qualifies under 102(b).
 
Sounds to me as if removing the reference is not available for you.
IP Logged

Isaac
michael73
Newbie
*




   


Posts: 28
Re: 103 Rejection and "by another"
« Reply #11 on: Sep 12th, 2007, 5:48pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Oh wait Smiley
 
the publication date of my previous application was 14 months before the filing. now, I know for sure that we had invented the subject matter of the later application more than two months before its filing, so LESS than 12 months after the publication of the first application.
 
so, I should be able to swear behind, right? I am not a professional, so, to be sure: swearing back would mean, that I can get around 102(b)?
IP Logged
michael73
Newbie
*




   


Posts: 28
Re: 103 Rejection and "by another"
« Reply #12 on: Sep 12th, 2007, 5:52pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

sorry... guess I am wrong
 
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
 
I guess, filing date, not date of invention counts Sad
IP Logged
JimIvey
Moderator
Senior Member
*****




  jamesdivey  
WWW

Posts: 2584
Re: 103 Rejection and "by another"
« Reply #13 on: Sep 12th, 2007, 7:34pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Correct.  102(b) often leads to swearing, but none of it effective as "swearing behind."
 
Regards.
IP Logged

--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
Pages: 1 2 3  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2!
Forum software copyright 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board