Comments on: 35 USC 103 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/28/35-usc-103/ Patent Bar Review and Study Guide Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:59:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: randomex http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/28/35-usc-103/#comment-1167 randomex Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:34:24 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/28/35-usc-103/#comment-1167 Only if the prior art qualifies under 102 e, f, or g. See 103(c). I don't think Lucifer's question has enough information. Only if the prior art qualifies under 102 e, f, or g. See 103(c). I don’t think Lucifer’s question has enough information.

]]> By: Emily http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/28/35-usc-103/#comment-1166 Emily Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:23:22 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/28/35-usc-103/#comment-1166 I would say the 103 rejection is not proper, since the inventors are the same. (Someone please correct me if this is wrong!) I would say the 103 rejection is not proper, since the inventors are the same. (Someone please correct me if this is wrong!)

]]> By: Lucifer Johnsonville http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/28/35-usc-103/#comment-1165 Lucifer Johnsonville Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:40:03 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/28/35-usc-103/#comment-1165 A 103 ref is applied against my claims. It is a PCT, published on March 8, 2001, priority to September 1, 1999, filed on August 24, 2000. Inventors are BILL and TED. My application was filed as a PCT on March 6. 2003, with priority to a US application filed on March 7, 2002. Inventors are BILL and TED. Question: is the 103 rejection proper? Why or why not? A 103 ref is applied against my claims. It is a PCT, published on March 8, 2001, priority to September 1, 1999, filed on August 24, 2000. Inventors are BILL and TED.

My application was filed as a PCT on March 6. 2003, with priority to a US application filed on March 7, 2002. Inventors are BILL and TED.

Question: is the 103 rejection proper? Why or why not?

]]> By: patentbar http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/28/35-usc-103/#comment-1164 patentbar Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:48:52 +0000 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/11/28/35-usc-103/#comment-1164 On the exam: Prior art exclusion 103(c). "Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102 of this title [35 USC 102], shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person." On the exam: Prior art exclusion 103(c). “Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102 of this title [35 USC 102], shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.”

]]>