|
|
Author |
Topic: 103 Rejection and "by another" (Read 6946 times) |
|
Isaac
Senior Member
Posts: 3472
|
 |
Re: 103 Rejection and "by another"
« Reply #10 on: Sep 12th, 2007, 5:38pm » |
 Quote  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 Modify
|
Oh wait 
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 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 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
JimIvey
Moderator
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2584
|
|
Re: 103 Rejection and "by another"
« Reply #13 on: Sep 12th, 2007, 7:34pm » |
Quote 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
|
|
|
|
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print