Comments on: 35 USC 103

By: Sol

Sol — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:07:53 +0000

to Lucifer Johnsonville,

the PCT pbulication iteself is NOT a qualified 102 prior art against your app.
the 102 reference dates of the PCT
(a) March 8, 2001, but not by another, so disqualifed
(b) March 8, 2001, but within one year from March 7, 2002, so disqualifed
(c) n/a
(d) n/a
(e) n/a because it is filed before November 29, 2000
(f) n/a
(g) n/a

By: randomex

randomex — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:34:24 +0000

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

Emily — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:23:22 +0000

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

Lucifer Johnsonville — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:40:03 +0000

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

patentbar — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:48:52 +0000

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.”