http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/09/q68-prior-art/ Patent Bar Review and Study Guide Tue, 07 Feb 2012 03:15:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/09/q68-prior-art/#comment-14057 fengyuwuzu Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:48:00 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/09/q68-prior-art/#comment-14057 Good point! Good point!

]]> http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/09/q68-prior-art/#comment-11880 Jake Fri, 03 Jun 2011 20:30:01 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/09/q68-prior-art/#comment-11880 I would just add that I think the main point of 102(a) is that the publication must be published before the INVENTION, not the filing data like 102(b). Therefore, the applicant himself, cannot publish something that antedates his own invention ... otherwise, it wouldn't anticipate! I would just add that I think the main point of 102(a) is that the publication must be published before the INVENTION, not the filing data like 102(b). Therefore, the applicant himself, cannot publish something that antedates his own invention … otherwise, it wouldn’t anticipate!

]]> http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/09/q68-prior-art/#comment-3433 Michael Sun, 08 Aug 2010 18:39:00 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/09/q68-prior-art/#comment-3433 Or maybe if the "reference" was an article wherein the applicant abandons said invention. Or maybe if the “reference” was an article wherein the applicant abandons said invention.

]]> http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/09/q68-prior-art/#comment-3339 dot Sun, 01 Aug 2010 17:37:24 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/09/q68-prior-art/#comment-3339 I had the same question as #1.. thanks for the clarification! I had the same question as #1.. thanks for the clarification!

]]> http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/09/q68-prior-art/#comment-1127 a Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:43:56 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/09/q68-prior-art/#comment-1127 Also to answer #1's question: say the applicant authored article A, in which he reviewed & disclosed articles B and C. Assume B or C could each be 102(a) references barring the patent. The question asks 'which of the following could never be a proper 102(a) reference?' Article A is not a PROPER 102(a) reference -- B and C might be, but A, written by the applicant cannot be one. Hairs can be split the other way =) Also to answer #1’s question: say the applicant authored article A, in which he reviewed & disclosed articles B and C. Assume B or C could each be 102(a) references barring the patent. The question asks ‘which of the following could never be a proper 102(a) reference?’ Article A is not a PROPER 102(a) reference — B and C might be, but A, written by the applicant cannot be one. Hairs can be split the other way =)

]]> http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/09/q68-prior-art/#comment-1126 Aparna Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:40:34 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/09/q68-prior-art/#comment-1126 Well, the language in 102(a) seems to state that as long as it was described in a printed publication (and for 102(a) it must be "by another"), it is prior art. Thus to fall under 102(a) it must be *described* by another and here it was described by the applicant. Well, the language in 102(a) seems to state that as long as it was described in a printed publication (and for 102(a) it must be “by another”), it is prior art. Thus to fall under 102(a) it must be *described* by another and here it was described by the applicant.

]]> http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/09/q68-prior-art/#comment-1125 nuke-u-lar_inNM Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:54:25 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/09/q68-prior-art/#comment-1125 Maybe it's the insidious influence of law school here, but I find "E," while obviously the "best answer," to also be a little too vague -- what if the "reference" is an article wherein the applicant reviews and discloses prior art not of his own making? To me the wording seems incomplete, and if there was a "none of the above" choice here I may have picked it. Am I way off base here?? Maybe it’s the insidious influence of law school here, but I find “E,” while obviously the “best answer,” to also be a little too vague — what if the “reference” is an article wherein the applicant reviews and discloses prior art not of his own making? To me the wording seems incomplete, and if there was a “none of the above” choice here I may have picked it. Am I way off base here??

]]>