<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Q) Terminal Disclaimer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/</link>
	<description>Patent Bar Review and Study Guide</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:43:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-3425</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Aug 2010 04:13:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-3425</guid>
		<description>In this case, the following would be acceptable per 1490:

1. The applicant
2. The applicant and [co A, co B, or inventor (moot)]
or
3. The attorney/agent</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In this case, the following would be acceptable per 1490:</p>
<p>1. The applicant<br />
2. The applicant and [co A, co B, or inventor (moot)]<br />
or<br />
3. The attorney/agent</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: S</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-2546</link>
		<dc:creator>S</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:56:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-2546</guid>
		<description>I got a this.

Who can sign except:

Assignee with part interest.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I got a this.</p>
<p>Who can sign except:</p>
<p>Assignee with part interest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DY</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-1300</link>
		<dc:creator>DY</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:30:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-1300</guid>
		<description>According to the following, it seems that, at least, all owners with partial interest need to sign TD.

MPEP 1490

¶ 14.26 Does Not Comply With 37 CFR 1.321(b) and/or (c) &quot;Sub-Heading&quot; Only

The terminal disclaimer does not comply with 37 CFR 1.321(b) and/or (c) because:

[...]

¶ 14.26.06 Not Signed by All Owners

It was not signed by all owners and, therefore, supplemental terminal disclaimers are required from the remaining owners.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to the following, it seems that, at least, all owners with partial interest need to sign TD.</p>
<p>MPEP 1490</p>
<p>¶ 14.26 Does Not Comply With 37 CFR 1.321(b) and/or (c) &#8220;Sub-Heading&#8221; Only</p>
<p>The terminal disclaimer does not comply with 37 CFR 1.321(b) and/or (c) because:</p>
<p>[...]</p>
<p>¶ 14.26.06 Not Signed by All Owners</p>
<p>It was not signed by all owners and, therefore, supplemental terminal disclaimers are required from the remaining owners.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Art Williams</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-1299</link>
		<dc:creator>Art Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:39:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-1299</guid>
		<description>Can anyone help me to understand the operation meaning of &quot;undivided part interest&quot;?  I&#039;m assuming that divided part interest is equivalent to multiple undivided part interests.

Also, what is the operational meaning of a terminal disclaimer of a fractional interest?  In the example above, if the inventor &quot;retains a 20% interest&quot;, and signs a terminal disclaimer, how does that impact the protection provided by the patent, (assuming for the sake of discussion that A and B do not sign the disclaimer).

Thanks very much, Art Williams</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can anyone help me to understand the operation meaning of &#8220;undivided part interest&#8221;?  I&#8217;m assuming that divided part interest is equivalent to multiple undivided part interests.</p>
<p>Also, what is the operational meaning of a terminal disclaimer of a fractional interest?  In the example above, if the inventor &#8220;retains a 20% interest&#8221;, and signs a terminal disclaimer, how does that impact the protection provided by the patent, (assuming for the sake of discussion that A and B do not sign the disclaimer).</p>
<p>Thanks very much, Art Williams</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Art Williams</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-1298</link>
		<dc:creator>Art Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:19:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-1298</guid>
		<description>Can anyone help me to understand the distinction between statutory and nonstatutory double patenting?

Whether or not an application differs patentably from prior art is the output of prosecution, not the input.  Am I missing something here?

Thanks very much, Art Williams</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can anyone help me to understand the distinction between statutory and nonstatutory double patenting?</p>
<p>Whether or not an application differs patentably from prior art is the output of prosecution, not the input.  Am I missing something here?</p>
<p>Thanks very much, Art Williams</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DoubleO</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-1297</link>
		<dc:creator>DoubleO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:02:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-1297</guid>
		<description>Not John, but anyway ...

No, not all may sign, according to MPEP 1490 (*emphasis added*):

&quot;... For a disclaimer to be accepted, it must be signed by the proper party as follows:


(A) A disclaimer filed in *an application* must be signed by

(1) the applicant *where the application has not been assigned*,

(2) the applicant and the assignee *where each owns a part interest in the application*,

(3) the assignee *where assignee owns the entire interest in the application*, or

(4) *an attorney or agent of record*.

(B) A disclaimer filed in *a patent or a reexamination proceeding* must be signed by either

(1) the patentee (the assignee, the inventor(s) if the patent is not assigned, or the assignee and the inventors if the patent is assigned-in-part), or

(2) an attorney or agent of record.&quot;

Accordingly, in the above situation, the applicant/inventor may not sign on his own.

Instead, either the patent attorney or agent of record may sign, or the applicant AND the assignee(s) (i.e. whoever became, is or remains owner - those inventors who have not completely assigned their interest, and any partial assignees)

Hope this helps ... :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not John, but anyway &#8230;</p>
<p>No, not all may sign, according to MPEP 1490 (*emphasis added*):</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230; For a disclaimer to be accepted, it must be signed by the proper party as follows:</p>
<p>(A) A disclaimer filed in *an application* must be signed by</p>
<p>(1) the applicant *where the application has not been assigned*,</p>
<p>(2) the applicant and the assignee *where each owns a part interest in the application*,</p>
<p>(3) the assignee *where assignee owns the entire interest in the application*, or</p>
<p>(4) *an attorney or agent of record*.</p>
<p>(B) A disclaimer filed in *a patent or a reexamination proceeding* must be signed by either</p>
<p>(1) the patentee (the assignee, the inventor(s) if the patent is not assigned, or the assignee and the inventors if the patent is assigned-in-part), or</p>
<p>(2) an attorney or agent of record.&#8221;</p>
<p>Accordingly, in the above situation, the applicant/inventor may not sign on his own.</p>
<p>Instead, either the patent attorney or agent of record may sign, or the applicant AND the assignee(s) (i.e. whoever became, is or remains owner &#8211; those inventors who have not completely assigned their interest, and any partial assignees)</p>
<p>Hope this helps &#8230; <img src='http://mypatentbar.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-1296</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:15:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-1296</guid>
		<description>So John,

THe answer is all of the below may sign it, correct?
(i)by the applicant, or
(ii)if there is an assignee of record of an undivided part interest, by the applicant and such assignee, or
(iii)if there is an assignee of record of the entire interest,
by such assignee, or
(iv)by an attorney or agent of record;


Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So John,</p>
<p>THe answer is all of the below may sign it, correct?<br />
(i)by the applicant, or<br />
(ii)if there is an assignee of record of an undivided part interest, by the applicant and such assignee, or<br />
(iii)if there is an assignee of record of the entire interest,<br />
by such assignee, or<br />
(iv)by an attorney or agent of record;</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-1295</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:49:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-1295</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t understand the confusion. MPEP 1490 (under (ii)) and MPEP 324 align perfectly.

1490 (ii) states &quot;if there is an assignee of record of an undivided part interest, BY THE APPLICANT AND SUCH ASSIGNEE&quot;

this aligns perfectly with 324.

where&#039;s the problem?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t understand the confusion. MPEP 1490 (under (ii)) and MPEP 324 align perfectly.</p>
<p>1490 (ii) states &#8220;if there is an assignee of record of an undivided part interest, BY THE APPLICANT AND SUCH ASSIGNEE&#8221;</p>
<p>this aligns perfectly with 324.</p>
<p>where&#8217;s the problem?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: matt30</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-1294</link>
		<dc:creator>matt30</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 13:44:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-1294</guid>
		<description>I chose all inventors plus one rep. from each and every assignee companies.
Looking at MPEP I am not sure about it now. MPEP&#039;s wording is a little bit vague for me on the subject... However it makes sense, if you are giving up a right such as a patent term, my common sense says everybody with an interest in the patent should give up their own right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I chose all inventors plus one rep. from each and every assignee companies.<br />
Looking at MPEP I am not sure about it now. MPEP&#8217;s wording is a little bit vague for me on the subject&#8230; However it makes sense, if you are giving up a right such as a patent term, my common sense says everybody with an interest in the patent should give up their own right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-1293</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 May 2009 17:16:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/01/413/#comment-1293</guid>
		<description>matt30, what was your answer to the question</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>matt30, what was your answer to the question</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
