MPEP 700, Reference is Publication of Applicant’s Own Invention
Test takers have noted that Questions #10 & 11 from April 2000 (AM) patent bar exam is in the Prometric database.
Please answer questions 10 and 11 based on the following facts.
10. Mario Lepieux was a member of a Canadian national hockey team touring Europe. While traveling through Germany (a WTO member country) in December 1998, Mario conceived of an aerodynamic design for a hockey helmet that offered players improved protection while reducing air resistance during skating. Upon Mario’s return to Canada (a NAFTA country), he enlisted his brothers Luigi and Pepe Lepieux to help him market the product under the tradename “Wing Cap.” On February 1, 1999, without Mario’s knowledge or permission, Luigi anonymously published a promotional article written by Mario and fully disclosing how the Wing Cap was made and used. The promotional article was published in Moose Jaw Monthly, a regional Canadian magazine that is not distributed in the United States. The Wing Cap was first reduced to practice on March 17, 1999. A United States patent application properly naming Mario as the sole inventor was filed September 17, 1999. That application has now been rejected as being anticipated by the Moose Jaw Monthly article.
10. Which of the following statements is most correct?
(A) The promotional article cannot be used as prior art because the Wing Cap had not been reduced to practice at the time the article appeared in the regional Canadian magazine.
(B) The regional Canadian magazine article is not prima facie prior art because it was published without Mario’s knowledge or permission.
(C) The regional Canadian magazine article is not prima facie prior art because it appeared in a regional Canadian publication and does not evidence knowledge or use in the United States.
(D) The promotional article in the regional Canadian magazine constituted an offer to sell that operates as an absolute bar against Mario’s patent application.
(E) Mario, as the inventor, can overcome the rejection by filing an affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 establishing that he is the inventor, and the article describes his work.
11. Which of the following statements is most correct?
(A) In a priority contest against another inventor, Mario can rely on his activities in Canada in establishing a date of invention.
(B) In a priority contest against another inventor, Mario can rely on his activities in Germany in establishing a date of invention.
(C) Mario can rely on his activities in Canada in establishing a date of invention prior to publication of the regional Canadian magazine article.
(D) (A) and (C).
(E) (A), (B), and (C).
10. ANSWER: (E). MPEP § 716.10. There is no requirement that a publication describe something that has actually been reduced to practice before the publication can act as a prior art reference. Thus, statement (A) is not correct. With regard to statement (B), there is no requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 102 that a publication be made with an inventor’s knowledge or permission before it constitutes prior art. Statement (C) is incorrect at least because the Wing Cap was “described in a printed publication in…a foreign country” (35 U.S.C. § 102(a)) before Mario’s filing date and is therefore presumptive prior art. (D) is incorrect because even if the promotional article constituted an offer to sell, it was not in this country and was made less than a year prior to Mario’s filing date. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
11. ANSWER: (E). Mario may rely on activities in both Germany (a WTO member country) and Canada (a NAFTA country) in establishing a date of invention prior to publication of the Moose Jaw Monthly article or in establishing priority. 35 U.S.C. § 104; see also MPEP § 715.01(c).
715.02 How Much of the Claimed Invention Must Be Shown, Including the General Rule as to Generic Claims:
The 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration must establish possession of either the whole invention claimed or something falling within the claim (such
as a species of a claimed genus), in the sense that the claim as a whole reads on it.
..the affidavit or declaration showing must still establish possession of the invention (i.e., the basic inventive concept)and not just of what one reference (in a combination of applied references) happens to show, if that reference does not itself teach the basic inventive concept.