Comments on: Q) Smith (10.03.9a)

By: RT

RT — Fri, 11 May 2012 16:56:22 +0000

Got it 5-10-12

By: Galya Blachman

Galya Blachman — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:54:04 +0000

Miranda – under 102(a) the “date of invention” can be actual reduction to practice or constructive reduction to practice (i.e. filing). The publication occurred prior to the filing of the second application so it qualifies as prior art.

By: KillianRed

KillianRed — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 21:30:58 +0000

Got this one 3/17/12

By: Miranda

Miranda — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 01:41:57 +0000

How does the publication qualify as 102(a) if there is no indication of applicant’s date of invention with regards to the 2nd invention?

By: Kerstin

Kerstin — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:29:54 +0000

In case it helps anyone, the relevant provision is not located under 201.11, Part I(b). Part VII has a new title now…..

By: maggie

maggie — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 15:45:32 +0000

It will only be prior art against the child If there is no (parent-child relationship est during co-pendency). For example of this see the Spanish phone Q..

By: KF

KF — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 14:31:24 +0000

RIght, and the parent application can now be used as prior art for the CIP app, right?

By: maggie

maggie — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:34:50 +0000

Yes, and any “new matter” claims in a CIP do not get benefit of earlier priority date.

By: maggie

maggie — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:32:27 +0000

No, retaking in Nov

By: KF

KF — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 02:01:09 +0000

So, to clarify Answer C is wrong, because there is no requirement that a CIP be filed within 1 year of the parent application. A CIP can be filed whenever, as long as the parent application is still in prosecution, hence the two applications would be copending??