Comments on: Q) Spanish Phone (MPEP 1500, Design Patent) http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/ Patent Bar Review and Study Guide Tue, 07 Feb 2012 03:15:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: seanz http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-30456 seanz Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:18:56 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-30456 I think they're referring to the point that when you file a CIP, your added disclosure has to be less than 6 months after the filing date of foreign application too to properly claim priority as to the added new disclosure I think they’re referring to the point that when you file a CIP, your added disclosure has to be less than 6 months after the filing date of foreign application too to properly claim priority as to the added new disclosure

]]> By: Jen http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-29403 Jen Thu, 19 Jan 2012 19:10:10 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-29403 Can you please explain to me what "CIP kills the design" or something like that? If you file a CIP, what happens? Can you please explain to me what “CIP kills the design” or something like that? If you file a CIP, what happens?

]]> By: Bagelman http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-29395 Bagelman Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:01:26 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-29395 Got the variant version 1/18/12 Got the variant version 1/18/12

]]> By: ChemEEE http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-21874 ChemEEE Wed, 09 Nov 2011 23:26:56 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-21874 Got Maggie's variant 11-7-11 answered same as her -- If the prior patents anticipate or render obvious the new design, 102(d) kills the CIP Got Maggie’s variant 11-7-11
answered same as her — If the prior patents anticipate or render obvious the new design, 102(d) kills the CIP

]]> By: Jamecam http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-19409 Jamecam Mon, 31 Oct 2011 02:34:30 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-19409 I got this question on 10/29/2011. The facts stated that the a foreign design patent was obtained and a U.S. design patent was filed within 6 months. A CIP application was filed after the 6 month deadline which could not claim the filing date of the previous application because the claims were not supported by its disclosure. I chose the answer that the applicant was barred by 102(d). I got this question on 10/29/2011.

The facts stated that the a foreign design patent was obtained and a U.S. design patent was filed within 6 months. A CIP application was filed after the 6 month deadline which could not claim the filing date of the previous application because the claims were not supported by its disclosure.

I chose the answer that the applicant was barred by 102(d).

]]> By: maggie http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-18035 maggie Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:52:42 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-18035 and... 2135.01 The Four Requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102(d) 102(d) rejection applies if applicant's foreign application supports the subject matter of the U.S. claims (even if more is claimed in US app) and…
2135.01 The Four Requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102(d)
102(d) rejection applies if applicant’s foreign application supports the subject matter of the U.S. claims (even if more is claimed in US app)

]]> By: maggie http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-18033 maggie Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:45:47 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-18033 35 U.S.C. §102(d); MPEP §2135.01, A Continuation - In - Part Breaks The Chain Of Priority As To Foreign As Well As U.S. Parents. 35 U.S.C. §102(d);

MPEP §2135.01, A Continuation – In – Part Breaks The Chain Of Priority As To Foreign As Well As U.S. Parents.

]]> By: maggie http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-17987 maggie Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:24:51 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-17987 I think this is correct is it overall the invention is an obvious variant of the phone filed in Spain. I think this is correct is it overall the invention is an obvious variant of the phone filed in Spain.

]]> By: maggie http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-17986 maggie Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:23:07 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-17986 It is going to be a 102(d) Bar to your US patent 102 (d) Issued foregin patent before US app filing date you must get on file in US Before 12 months (utility), 6 months (designs) from frogein filing date to gain priority for Foreign app --> if not 102(d) barred from patenting (1) Same inventor/owner assignee (2) Don't have to be identical in claims but same invention It is going to be a 102(d) Bar to your US patent
102 (d)
Issued foregin patent before US app filing date you must get on file in US Before 12 months (utility), 6 months (designs) from frogein filing date to gain priority for Foreign app –> if not 102(d) barred from patenting
(1) Same inventor/owner assignee
(2) Don’t have to be identical in claims but same invention

]]> By: sgw http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-17775 sgw Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:33:08 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/14/q27-spanish-phone/#comment-17775 Got this question on 10/15/2011. Got this question on 10/15/2011.

]]>