Comments on: 35 USC 102(a) http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/27/35-usc-102a/ Patent Bar Review and Study Guide Tue, 07 Feb 2012 03:15:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: LM http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/27/35-usc-102a/#comment-8727 LM Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:20:28 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/27/35-usc-102a/#comment-8727 Snapshot of 102 102(a) = anything BEFORE filing of US application 102(b) = ONE YEAR concept - before one year all that matters 102(c) = abandoned 102(d) = TWO applicaitons - Foreign and US 102(e) = patent / publication of another AFTER filing US application 102(f) f = fraud 102(g) = gone - invention by others before your invention in US Snapshot of 102

102(a) = anything BEFORE filing of US application

102(b) = ONE YEAR concept – before one year all that matters

102(c) = abandoned

102(d) = TWO applicaitons – Foreign and US

102(e) = patent / publication of another AFTER filing US application

102(f) f = fraud

102(g) = gone – invention by others before your invention in US

]]> By: LM http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/27/35-usc-102a/#comment-8726 LM Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:57:02 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/27/35-usc-102a/#comment-8726 Difference between 102 (a) and 102 (e) for prior art - which could be a bar - 102(a) = publication is BEFORE your application - publication date is a prior art date 102(e) = publication is AFTER your application - effective fiing date is a prior art date For US applications Difference between 102 (a) and 102 (e) for prior art – which could be a bar –

102(a) = publication is BEFORE your application – publication date is a prior art date

102(e) = publication is AFTER your application – effective fiing date is a prior art date

For US applications

]]> By: Marc Avila http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/27/35-usc-102a/#comment-2312 Marc Avila Fri, 14 May 2010 16:28:29 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/27/35-usc-102a/#comment-2312 By "Rule 31" in the "Overcoming a 102(a) Rejection" section, do you mean Rule § 1.131 Affidavit or declaration of prior invention? By “Rule 31″ in the “Overcoming a 102(a) Rejection” section, do you mean Rule § 1.131 Affidavit or declaration of prior invention?

]]> By: DrKye http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/27/35-usc-102a/#comment-1155 DrKye Tue, 12 Jan 2010 05:04:09 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/27/35-usc-102a/#comment-1155 Yes, you are correct. However, if you are planning to seek protection of your invention outside of the US, this is not the best plan of action since most countries have an absolute novelty requirement when filing for a patent. Thus, if your invention has been publicly disclosed in the US, you have forfeited your right to a patent in most other countries (except Australia and, I believe, Canada). Yes, you are correct. However, if you are planning to seek protection of your invention outside of the US, this is not the best plan of action since most countries have an absolute novelty requirement when filing for a patent. Thus, if your invention has been publicly disclosed in the US, you have forfeited your right to a patent in most other countries (except Australia and, I believe, Canada).

]]> By: 102(a) http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/27/35-usc-102a/#comment-1154 102(a) Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:49:04 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/27/35-usc-102a/#comment-1154 I presume that it is not barred under 102(a) for an inventor to publish his invention before the filing date of the patent application. The statute says invention must not patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, BEFORE the invention thereof by the applicant for patent. So if the applicant describes his invention AFTER the invention thereof, it would be all right. Right? I presume that it is not barred under 102(a) for an inventor to publish his invention before the filing date of the patent application.

The statute says invention must not patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, BEFORE the invention thereof by the applicant for patent. So if the applicant describes his invention AFTER the invention thereof, it would be all right. Right?

]]>