對於研發型的公司為了強先得到申請日只要有發明就搶先file provisional application，再於一年內，將這一整年的整合成一個申請案。但如果過了一年之後怎麼辦？在做申請專利的策略上應考慮什麼？
原本是希望寫個有關“申請策略”的相關文章的，只是最近讀著讀著，愈來愈沒信心，每讀一篇就會發現原來先前讀的那篇觀念沒搞懂，錯誤的觀念一堆，實在是無 法從那麼複雜的資料當中，找出一個出口，整理成一篇正確有用的內容。所以決定放棄了，也許以後程度高一點後，再來試試吧。去綠島回來後，整個人也懶 了。
7/21/2005
7/20/2005
【美專】Avoiding a Double Patenting Rejection
Avoiding a Double Patenting Rejection: "Avoiding a Double Patenting Rejection"
Disclaiming each one of the conflicting double patenting references is necessary to avoid the problem of dual ownership of patents to patentably indistinct inventions in the event that the patent issuing from the application being examined ceases to be commonly owned with any one of the double patenting references that have issued or may issue as a patent. Note that 37 CFR 1.321(c)(3) requires that a terminal disclaimer "[i]nclude a provision that any patent granted on that application or any patent subject to the reexamination proceeding shall be enforceable only for and during such period that said patent is commonly owned with the application or patent which formed the basis for the rejection."
如果該等相關的申請案，不再同時被commonly own的時候它是unenforceable的。
Disclaiming each one of the conflicting double patenting references is necessary to avoid the problem of dual ownership of patents to patentably indistinct inventions in the event that the patent issuing from the application being examined ceases to be commonly owned with any one of the double patenting references that have issued or may issue as a patent. Note that 37 CFR 1.321(c)(3) requires that a terminal disclaimer "[i]nclude a provision that any patent granted on that application or any patent subject to the reexamination proceeding shall be enforceable only for and during such period that said patent is commonly owned with the application or patent which formed the basis for the rejection."
如果該等相關的申請案，不再同時被commonly own的時候它是unenforceable的。
7/19/2005
【美專】相同的發明大不同
A Genus Is Not The “same patentable invention” As A Species
美專102判斷新穎性時通常用：
That which infringes, if later, would anticipate, if earlier.
引證案如果作為後案會侵權本案，則作為前案就會預見本案。
因此前案揭露 Species 而後案揭露 Genus 時，後案會不具新穎性而無法取得專利，而且反之“不然”，但是試想若兩案都在申請中時，在102(e)(g)下這又會是什麼樣的情形？此時就應採用斷所謂的“Two-Way Test”：
Invention A must be separately patentable from Invention B considered as prior art and Invention B must be separately patentable from Invention A considered as prior art.
因此在102(e)(g)的情況下，前案揭露 Species 而後案揭露 Genus 時，後案還是可以取得專利，只是不知道其他第三者侵犯 Species 的專利時，不知是否也應賠償擁有 Genus 專利的專利權人？
參考一下美國聯邦法規的規定：§ 1.601 Scope of rules, definitions. - PATENT RULES: 37 CFR 1.601(n)
(n) Invention 'A' is the same patentable invention as an invention 'B' when invention 'A' is the same as (35 U.S.C. 102) or is obvious (35 U.S.C. 103) in view of invention 'B' assuming invention 'B' is prior art with respect to invention 'A'. Invention 'A' is a separate patentable invention with respect to invention 'B' when invention 'A' is new (35 U.S.C. 102) and non-obvious (35 U.S.C. 103) in view of invention 'B' assuming invention 'B' is prior art with respect to invention 'A'.
在 判斷是否為 double patenting 或是否需要啟動 Interference 時，即利用此種“Two-Way Test”，這與判斷是否具可專利性不同，但是從 37 CFR 1.601(n) 就字義上的解譯，似乎較偏向“One-Way Test”。但可看看法官們怎麼解譯：
"Federal Circuit Affirms Two-Way Test for Patentably Distinct Subject Matter"
The Court further found that the PTO's interpretation of its own regulation (namely Rule 601(n), quoted above) to require a two way test is controlling unless "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with regulation." The Court reasoned that the phrase in Rule 601(n), "assuming invention B is prior art with respect to invention A" is reasonably susceptible to the PTO's interpretation, namely that because (a) it is not known a priori which of the two inventions is prior art (b) and the phrase does not require that invention B presumptively be that of the senior party, the PTO may interpret the phrase to mean that both inventions may be assumed to be prior art invention B.
法規所使用的語言是 A 和 B，並沒有明確指明 A 和 B 哪一個應是 senior party，因此 two way test 是適當的。
============================================
相知道的更多，可參考：
Introduction to Interference, by Richard Neifeld, Ph.D., Patent Attorney: "Introduction to Interference"
37 CFR 1.131 precludes antedating a U.S. patent reference when the patent reference's claims interfere with the application's claims. (4) Prior to Winter, many believed that a U.S. patent reference could not be antedated when there was one-ways obviousness between the pending claims and the reference patent's claims. However, Winter specified a different conclusion, and its impacts are significant. Thus, removing a limitation in a pending claim previously interfering with a claim in an issued patent may result in that claim no longer satisfying the two-ways test, and therefore no longer interfering. If the applicant can also antedate the U.S. patent reference as to the broader amended pending claim, the broader amended pending claim is not rejectable based upon the existence of the U.S. patent reference.
參見：這裡
A. SAME INVENTION-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING
The prohibition against patenting the same invention more than once has its origins in 35 U.S.C. §101, which states that an inventor may obtain “a patent” on an invention.
The test currently used for same invention-type double patenting is “whether one of the claims being compared could be literally infringed without literally infringing the
other. If it could be, the claims do not define identically the same invention.” In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (C.C.P.A. 1970).
Patently-O: Patent Law Blog: Patent Board Codifies Two-Way Test for Interference, Streamlines Process.: "Under the two-way test, 'An interference exists if the subject matter of a claim of one party would, if prior art, have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of a claim of the opposing party and vice versa.' "
Google 搜尋: "two way test"
two way test：批評 two way test 的 Memorandum。
two way test
two way test the same claims
日本的美國ip news..
美專102判斷新穎性時通常用：
That which infringes, if later, would anticipate, if earlier.
引證案如果作為後案會侵權本案，則作為前案就會預見本案。
因此前案揭露 Species 而後案揭露 Genus 時，後案會不具新穎性而無法取得專利，而且反之“不然”，但是試想若兩案都在申請中時，在102(e)(g)下這又會是什麼樣的情形？此時就應採用斷所謂的“Two-Way Test”：
Invention A must be separately patentable from Invention B considered as prior art and Invention B must be separately patentable from Invention A considered as prior art.
因此在102(e)(g)的情況下，前案揭露 Species 而後案揭露 Genus 時，後案還是可以取得專利，只是不知道其他第三者侵犯 Species 的專利時，不知是否也應賠償擁有 Genus 專利的專利權人？
參考一下美國聯邦法規的規定：§ 1.601 Scope of rules, definitions. - PATENT RULES: 37 CFR 1.601(n)
(n) Invention 'A' is the same patentable invention as an invention 'B' when invention 'A' is the same as (35 U.S.C. 102) or is obvious (35 U.S.C. 103) in view of invention 'B' assuming invention 'B' is prior art with respect to invention 'A'. Invention 'A' is a separate patentable invention with respect to invention 'B' when invention 'A' is new (35 U.S.C. 102) and non-obvious (35 U.S.C. 103) in view of invention 'B' assuming invention 'B' is prior art with respect to invention 'A'.
在 判斷是否為 double patenting 或是否需要啟動 Interference 時，即利用此種“Two-Way Test”，這與判斷是否具可專利性不同，但是從 37 CFR 1.601(n) 就字義上的解譯，似乎較偏向“One-Way Test”。但可看看法官們怎麼解譯：
"Federal Circuit Affirms Two-Way Test for Patentably Distinct Subject Matter"
The Court further found that the PTO's interpretation of its own regulation (namely Rule 601(n), quoted above) to require a two way test is controlling unless "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with regulation." The Court reasoned that the phrase in Rule 601(n), "assuming invention B is prior art with respect to invention A" is reasonably susceptible to the PTO's interpretation, namely that because (a) it is not known a priori which of the two inventions is prior art (b) and the phrase does not require that invention B presumptively be that of the senior party, the PTO may interpret the phrase to mean that both inventions may be assumed to be prior art invention B.
法規所使用的語言是 A 和 B，並沒有明確指明 A 和 B 哪一個應是 senior party，因此 two way test 是適當的。
============================================
相知道的更多，可參考：
Introduction to Interference, by Richard Neifeld, Ph.D., Patent Attorney: "Introduction to Interference"
37 CFR 1.131 precludes antedating a U.S. patent reference when the patent reference's claims interfere with the application's claims. (4) Prior to Winter, many believed that a U.S. patent reference could not be antedated when there was one-ways obviousness between the pending claims and the reference patent's claims. However, Winter specified a different conclusion, and its impacts are significant. Thus, removing a limitation in a pending claim previously interfering with a claim in an issued patent may result in that claim no longer satisfying the two-ways test, and therefore no longer interfering. If the applicant can also antedate the U.S. patent reference as to the broader amended pending claim, the broader amended pending claim is not rejectable based upon the existence of the U.S. patent reference.
參見：這裡
A. SAME INVENTION-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING
The prohibition against patenting the same invention more than once has its origins in 35 U.S.C. §101, which states that an inventor may obtain “a patent” on an invention.
The test currently used for same invention-type double patenting is “whether one of the claims being compared could be literally infringed without literally infringing the
other. If it could be, the claims do not define identically the same invention.” In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (C.C.P.A. 1970).
Patently-O: Patent Law Blog: Patent Board Codifies Two-Way Test for Interference, Streamlines Process.: "Under the two-way test, 'An interference exists if the subject matter of a claim of one party would, if prior art, have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of a claim of the opposing party and vice versa.' "
Google 搜尋: "two way test"
two way test：批評 two way test 的 Memorandum。
two way test
two way test the same claims
日本的美國ip news..
7/18/2005
【美專】CIP的子案與母案之間
美專120的部分內容：
An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 of this title, which is filed by an inventor or inventors named in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application.
因此規定了只有在by an inventor or inventors named in the previously filed application 的情況下才可以 entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application。
介紹一個判例“In Re Chu”：申請人母案申請發明 A ，隨後再申請 CIP 子案對發明 A 加入新的限制條件，並且還改變了inventive entities。
先看看Board的分析：
Analysis of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
It reasoned that “because the Doyle patent and the Chu application have different, albeit overlapping, inventive entities,” the Doyle patent was necessarily the work of another as defined in the United States Patent Code,2 and therefore available as a prior art reference against the Chu application.
事實上Board的分析其實是依據判例法對美專102條“by another”的解譯，只要有一人不相同就算是不同的inventive entities。因此子案就不能夠 entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application。
CAFC的分析
Analysis of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Congress’ s substitution of the phrase “by the same inventor” in 35 U.S.C. s.120 with the phrase “which is filed by an inventor or inventors named in the previously filed application” in the Patent Law Amendments Act of 1984. Judge Rich stated that with this change in statutory language, Congress intended to allow continuation, divisional, and continuation-in-part5 applications to be filed and afforded the filing date of the parent application even absent complete identity of inventorship between the parent and subsequent applications.
Thus Judge Rich reversed the Board’s conclusion that the Chu application—which incorporated one, but not all, of the inventors of the Doyle patent—was prevented from claiming priority under section 120 of the United States Patent Code.
Section 120, in conjunction with section 112 of the Patent Code, requires that in order for the subsequently-filed application to take advantage of its parent application’s earlier filing date, the parent application must disclose the subject matter claimed in the subsequent application.
Accordingly, Judge Rich found that Chu’s independent claim 1, the subject matter of the patent application at issue, was not supported by the Doyle patent’s disclosure. Therefore, Judge Rich denied Chu the benefit of its parent application’s earlier filing date.
後來CAFC對by an inventor or inventors named in the previously filed application的解譯是只要有一人相同即可，所以子案可以 entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application。但是還有個條件，就是只有母案有支持的部分才能夠 entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application。 最後由於子案新的claim沒有得到母案的支持，母案就變成子案的 prior art。
Specifically, in order for a subsequently-filed patent application to claim the filing date of its parent application, two requirements must be met. First, the inventive entity in the subsequent application must overlap at least in part with the inventive entity disclosed in the parent application. Second, the earlier-filed application must disclose the subject matter claimed in the subsequently-filed application.
自己的想法：
若 母案包含 a+b ；而子案包含 a+b+c 。我們可以爭論說因為子案的 a+b 可以 entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application，所以 a+b 不能拿來駁 a+b+c 嗎？當然不行因為發明是一個整體。不過這就奇怪了，那申請 CIP 做什麼？不就是為了享受母案 a+b 的日期，然後再加上 c ，來更完整的保護自己的發明嗎？目前還在想這個問題。
==========================================
另外還想到了 Terminal Disclaimer感覺好像滿像的，為什麼obviousness-type double patenting可以用Terminal Disclaimer克服而這就不行，哪裡出來問題？我想不出來，若各位前輩您知道答案，望請不吝指教（ides13@gmail.com）。
關於此問題，應該是在於兩發明間會不會被認為是屬於“相同的發明”。“ a+b+c”、“a+b”不會被認為是屬於相同的發明。那什麼又是屬於相同的發明？
An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 of this title, which is filed by an inventor or inventors named in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application.
因此規定了只有在by an inventor or inventors named in the previously filed application 的情況下才可以 entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application。
介紹一個判例“In Re Chu”：申請人母案申請發明 A ，隨後再申請 CIP 子案對發明 A 加入新的限制條件，並且還改變了inventive entities。
先看看Board的分析：
Analysis of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
It reasoned that “because the Doyle patent and the Chu application have different, albeit overlapping, inventive entities,” the Doyle patent was necessarily the work of another as defined in the United States Patent Code,2 and therefore available as a prior art reference against the Chu application.
事實上Board的分析其實是依據判例法對美專102條“by another”的解譯，只要有一人不相同就算是不同的inventive entities。因此子案就不能夠 entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application。
CAFC的分析
Analysis of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Congress’ s substitution of the phrase “by the same inventor” in 35 U.S.C. s.120 with the phrase “which is filed by an inventor or inventors named in the previously filed application” in the Patent Law Amendments Act of 1984. Judge Rich stated that with this change in statutory language, Congress intended to allow continuation, divisional, and continuation-in-part5 applications to be filed and afforded the filing date of the parent application even absent complete identity of inventorship between the parent and subsequent applications.
Thus Judge Rich reversed the Board’s conclusion that the Chu application—which incorporated one, but not all, of the inventors of the Doyle patent—was prevented from claiming priority under section 120 of the United States Patent Code.
Section 120, in conjunction with section 112 of the Patent Code, requires that in order for the subsequently-filed application to take advantage of its parent application’s earlier filing date, the parent application must disclose the subject matter claimed in the subsequent application.
Accordingly, Judge Rich found that Chu’s independent claim 1, the subject matter of the patent application at issue, was not supported by the Doyle patent’s disclosure. Therefore, Judge Rich denied Chu the benefit of its parent application’s earlier filing date.
後來CAFC對by an inventor or inventors named in the previously filed application的解譯是只要有一人相同即可，所以子案可以 entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application。但是還有個條件，就是只有母案有支持的部分才能夠 entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application。 最後由於子案新的claim沒有得到母案的支持，母案就變成子案的 prior art。
Specifically, in order for a subsequently-filed patent application to claim the filing date of its parent application, two requirements must be met. First, the inventive entity in the subsequent application must overlap at least in part with the inventive entity disclosed in the parent application. Second, the earlier-filed application must disclose the subject matter claimed in the subsequently-filed application.
自己的想法：
若 母案包含 a+b ；而子案包含 a+b+c 。我們可以爭論說因為子案的 a+b 可以 entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application，所以 a+b 不能拿來駁 a+b+c 嗎？當然不行因為發明是一個整體。不過這就奇怪了，那申請 CIP 做什麼？不就是為了享受母案 a+b 的日期，然後再加上 c ，來更完整的保護自己的發明嗎？目前還在想這個問題。
==========================================
另外還想到了 Terminal Disclaimer感覺好像滿像的，為什麼obviousness-type double patenting可以用Terminal Disclaimer克服而這就不行，哪裡出來問題？我想不出來，若各位前輩您知道答案，望請不吝指教（ides13@gmail.com）。
關於此問題，應該是在於兩發明間會不會被認為是屬於“相同的發明”。“ a+b+c”、“a+b”不會被認為是屬於相同的發明。那什麼又是屬於相同的發明？
【辭典】Ex parte 及 Inter parte
Ex parte Reexamination 一方當事者系的復審
Inter parte Reexamination （複數）當事者系的復審
關於Inter parte Reexamination，係依發人保護法所新增的復審制度，自2000年11月29日生效，並曾於2002年11月2日修法，此一程序僅能適用於申請日為或晚於1999年11月29日的已公告專利。
兩者間的差別在於：“Ex parte Reexamination”僅給專利權人提意見書，而“Inter parte Reexamination”則是給“請求復審的人”和“專利權人”兩當事者提意見書。
詳細介紹的話，可以參考美國專利復審制度(Reexamination)的介紹
=========================
其他連結：一、二、三、四、五
Inter parte Reexamination （複數）當事者系的復審
關於Inter parte Reexamination，係依發人保護法所新增的復審制度，自2000年11月29日生效，並曾於2002年11月2日修法，此一程序僅能適用於申請日為或晚於1999年11月29日的已公告專利。
兩者間的差別在於：“Ex parte Reexamination”僅給專利權人提意見書，而“Inter parte Reexamination”則是給“請求復審的人”和“專利權人”兩當事者提意見書。
詳細介紹的話，可以參考美國專利復審制度(Reexamination)的介紹
=========================
其他連結：一、二、三、四、五
【102】關於37 CFR 1.131及37 CFR 1.132 affidavit
若參考文獻屬於發明人自己的作品，美專102(a)和102(e)，兩者皆可用37 CFR 1.131或37 CFR 1.132 affidavit來克服。
可參考一下MPEP 706.02(b) Overcoming a 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejection Based on a Printed Publication or Patent [R-2] 的部分：
A rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 102(e) can be overcome by:
(C) Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing that the reference invention is not by “another.” See MPEP § 715.01(a), § 715.01(c), and § 716.10;
(D) Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 showing prior invention, if the reference is not a U.S. patent or a U.S. patent application publication claiming the same patentable invention as defined in 37 CFR 1.601(n).
●37 CFR 1.132用來顯示參考文獻不是由別人所發明的（to show derivation of the reference subject matter from applicant and invention by applicant. ）。
●37 CFR 1.131用來顯示自己的發明日早於參考文獻，另應注意它的“If”之後的條件。
還可參照這篇文章：
Rule 131 originally permitted “swearing behind” for an application that “does not claim the rejected invention.” The CCPA “conclude[d] that the phrase ‘does not claim the rejected invention’ should be construed favorably to an applicant, if possible, so that unless applicant is clearly claiming the same invention as the U.S. patent reference, he will not lose his rights under Rule 131.” In re Eickmeyer, 602 F.2d 974, 979 (CCPA 1979) (italics in original). The PTO amended Rule 131 by replacing the phrase “the rejected invention” with the phrase “the same patentable invention as defined in § 601(n).” 53 Fed. Reg. 23728 (June 23, 1988).
========================================
另一個網站上（Patent Prep），分析R131和R132的區別:
●An affidavit under 37 C.F.R. 1.131, otherwise known as “swearing back”, is commonly used to overcome certain types of rejections. Learn when it is appropriate to swear back.
●Delve into the in's and out's of 37 C.F.R. 1.132.
先簡單的介紹，以後有讀到再詳細解說。
可參考一下MPEP 706.02(b) Overcoming a 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejection Based on a Printed Publication or Patent [R-2] 的部分：
A rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 102(e) can be overcome by:
(C) Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing that the reference invention is not by “another.” See MPEP § 715.01(a), § 715.01(c), and § 716.10;
(D) Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 showing prior invention, if the reference is not a U.S. patent or a U.S. patent application publication claiming the same patentable invention as defined in 37 CFR 1.601(n).
●37 CFR 1.132用來顯示參考文獻不是由別人所發明的（to show derivation of the reference subject matter from applicant and invention by applicant. ）。
●37 CFR 1.131用來顯示自己的發明日早於參考文獻，另應注意它的“If”之後的條件。
還可參照這篇文章：
Rule 131 originally permitted “swearing behind” for an application that “does not claim the rejected invention.” The CCPA “conclude[d] that the phrase ‘does not claim the rejected invention’ should be construed favorably to an applicant, if possible, so that unless applicant is clearly claiming the same invention as the U.S. patent reference, he will not lose his rights under Rule 131.” In re Eickmeyer, 602 F.2d 974, 979 (CCPA 1979) (italics in original). The PTO amended Rule 131 by replacing the phrase “the rejected invention” with the phrase “the same patentable invention as defined in § 601(n).” 53 Fed. Reg. 23728 (June 23, 1988).
========================================
另一個網站上（Patent Prep），分析R131和R132的區別:
●An affidavit under 37 C.F.R. 1.131, otherwise known as “swearing back”, is commonly used to overcome certain types of rejections. Learn when it is appropriate to swear back.
●Delve into the in's and out's of 37 C.F.R. 1.132.
先簡單的介紹，以後有讀到再詳細解說。
7/08/2005
7/06/2005
【筆記】102(a)及102(b)的競合
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country（沒有“another”，makes no reference to "another" in the context of authorship of a publication）, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.
試想若某發明人在刊物上公開''a"，於日後將其改良而發明“A”再拿“A”來申請專利，在102(a)沒有限定“another”的情況下，"a"的公開會造成"A"的阻卻事由嗎？
參見“In re Davia Harvey Katz”：
It may not be readily apparent from the statutory language that a printed publication cannot stand as a reference under § 102(a) unless it is describing the work of another. A literal reading might appear to make a prior patent or printed publication "prior art" even though the disclosure is that of the applicant's own work. However, such an interpretation of this section of the statute would negate the one year period afforded under § 102(b) n1 during which an inventor is allowed to perfect, develop and apply for a patent on his invention and publish descriptions of it if he wishes.
As stated by this court in In re Facius, 56 CCPA 1348, 1358 , 408 F.2d 1396, 1406, 161 USPQ 294, 302 (1969), "But certainly one's own invention, whatever the form of disclosure to the public, may not be prior art against oneself, absent a statutory bar."
102(a)並沒有特別限定刊物的作者，因此可以解譯成“自己”或“別人”的作品都可作為prior art，但是若解譯成“自己”的也可以作為prior art的話，申請人就無法享受到102(b)的立法意旨。因此"But certainly one's own invention, whatever the form of disclosure to the public, may not be prior art against oneself, absent a statutory bar."。也就是說，發明人自己的作品若是在102(b)所提供之12個月的優惠期內，不應被當作prior art。
=================================
MPEP內的相關資訊
III. “BY OTHERS”
“Others” Means Any Combination of Authors or Inventors Different Than the Inventive Entity
The term “others” in 35 U.S.C. 102(a) refers to any entity which is different from the inventive entity. The entity need only differ by one person to be “by others.”
This holds true for all types of references eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) including publications as well as public knowledge and use. Any other interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) “would negate the one year [grace] period afforded under § 102(b).” In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982).
7/05/2005
【102】美專102(e)的整理
此篇僅整理2000年11月29日以後的部分，更早之前的部分請自行參照 MPEP。
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless
(e)the invention was described in —
(1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or
(2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent,
[(3)]except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
●引證案於12 June 2002號公開，符合 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) 的規定，故引證案的“Critical Reference Date”為它在美國的有效申請日 08 Dec. 2000。
●引證案於03 Dec 2002號獲准專利，符合 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) 的規定，故引證案的“Critical Reference Date”為它在美國的有效申請日 08 Dec. 2000。
●會將102(e)分成(1)及(2)的原因是：在美國並在某些條件下申請人可以決定是否要早期公開。
● 請留意“但書”的部分，PCT的申請案符合“designated the United States”、“published under Article 21(2)”、“in the English”的話，PCT的申請日亦可作為102(e)的“Critical Reference Date”。
要了解102(e)，應先從如何建立美國專利案或美國專利申請案的“Critical Reference Date”，請自行參照 MPEP 706.02(f)(1) 的部分，此文章中僅列出較容易造成誤解的地方：
（1） 主張國外優先權的申請案，其國際優先權日不能作為102(e)的“prior art date”，它的 102(e) prior art date 日期為它在美國的有效申請日。主張國內優先權的申請案，其國內優先權日可以作為102(e)的“prior art date”。參見以下例2及例3。
（2）PCT申請案的話僅有符合“但書”的部分才可有102(e)的“prior art date”，但是若不符合但書的三個條件如不以英文公開的話，就無法取得任何102(e)的“prior art date”。參見MPEP此部分的例4及例5。
Example 2: Reference Publication and Patent of 35 U.S.C. 111(a) Application with Priority/Benefit Claim to a Prior U.S. Provisional or Nonprovisional Application.
For reference publications and patents of patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the prior art dates under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) accorded to these references are the earliest effective U.S. filing dates. Thus, a publication and patent of a 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application, which claims priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to a prior U.S. provisional application or claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 of a prior nonprovisional application, would be accorded the earlier filing date as its prior art date under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), assuming the earlier-filed application has proper support for the subject matter as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120.
Example 3: Reference Publication and Patent of 35 U.S.C. 111(a) Application with 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) Benefit Claim to a Prior Foreign Application.
For reference publications and patents of patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the prior art dates under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) accorded to these references are the earliest effective U.S. filing dates. No benefit of the filing date of the foreign application is given under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) for prior art purposes (In re Hilmer, 149 USPQ 480 (CCPA 1966)).
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless
(e)the invention was described in —
(1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or
(2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent,
[(3)]except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
●引證案於12 June 2002號公開，符合 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) 的規定，故引證案的“Critical Reference Date”為它在美國的有效申請日 08 Dec. 2000。
●引證案於03 Dec 2002號獲准專利，符合 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) 的規定，故引證案的“Critical Reference Date”為它在美國的有效申請日 08 Dec. 2000。
●會將102(e)分成(1)及(2)的原因是：在美國並在某些條件下申請人可以決定是否要早期公開。
● 請留意“但書”的部分，PCT的申請案符合“designated the United States”、“published under Article 21(2)”、“in the English”的話，PCT的申請日亦可作為102(e)的“Critical Reference Date”。
要了解102(e)，應先從如何建立美國專利案或美國專利申請案的“Critical Reference Date”，請自行參照 MPEP 706.02(f)(1) 的部分，此文章中僅列出較容易造成誤解的地方：
（1） 主張國外優先權的申請案，其國際優先權日不能作為102(e)的“prior art date”，它的 102(e) prior art date 日期為它在美國的有效申請日。主張國內優先權的申請案，其國內優先權日可以作為102(e)的“prior art date”。參見以下例2及例3。
（2）PCT申請案的話僅有符合“但書”的部分才可有102(e)的“prior art date”，但是若不符合但書的三個條件如不以英文公開的話，就無法取得任何102(e)的“prior art date”。參見MPEP此部分的例4及例5。
Example 2: Reference Publication and Patent of 35 U.S.C. 111(a) Application with Priority/Benefit Claim to a Prior U.S. Provisional or Nonprovisional Application.
For reference publications and patents of patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the prior art dates under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) accorded to these references are the earliest effective U.S. filing dates. Thus, a publication and patent of a 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application, which claims priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to a prior U.S. provisional application or claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 of a prior nonprovisional application, would be accorded the earlier filing date as its prior art date under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), assuming the earlier-filed application has proper support for the subject matter as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120.
Example 3: Reference Publication and Patent of 35 U.S.C. 111(a) Application with 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) Benefit Claim to a Prior Foreign Application.
For reference publications and patents of patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the prior art dates under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) accorded to these references are the earliest effective U.S. filing dates. No benefit of the filing date of the foreign application is given under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) for prior art purposes (In re Hilmer, 149 USPQ 480 (CCPA 1966)).
7/04/2005
【102】美專102(a)的整理
可參考MPEP的2132 35 U.S.C. 102(a)：
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country,
or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
因為102(a)指得是發明日，所以參考文獻若屬於發明人自己的作品，當然不會被用來當作核駁的引證案。
Applicant's disclosure of his or her own work within the year before the application filing date cannot be used against him or her under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982)
其中要注意的是102(a)中“others”的定義，只要是發明實體（inventive entity）中，有一人不相同則不論增或減，都陂定義為"by others"：
The term "others" in 35 U.S.C. 102(a) refers to any entity which is different from the inventive entity. The entity need only differ by one person to be "by others." This holds true for all types of references eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) including publications as well as public knowledge and use.
故只要inventive entity不同了，即使“swearing back”無法克服inventive entity不同的問題，一樣會落入102(a)的範圍。參考：
A prima facie case is made out under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) if, within 1 year of the filing date, the invention, or an obvious variant thereof, is described in a "printed publication" whose authorship differs in any way from the inventive entity unless it is stated within the publication itself that the publication is describing the applicant's work. In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982).
雖然inventive entity已經不同了，還是有幾個方法可以補教。
第一個方法叫做“減法”：
Therefore, where the applicant is one of the co-authors of a publication cited against his or her application, the publication may be removed as a reference by the filing of affidavits made out by the other authors establishing that the relevant portions of the publication originated with, or were obtained from, applicant. Such affidavits are called disclaiming affidavits. Ex parte Hirschler, 110 USPQ 384 (Bd. App. 1952).
第二個方法叫做“加法”：
It is also possible to overcome the rejection by adding the coauthors as inventors to the application if the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 116, third paragraph are met. In re Searles, 422 F.2d 431, 164 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1970).
經過加減法使inventive entity相同之後，再“swearing back”，才可以不會再落入102(a)的範圍，但是還是要注意“statutory bar”，小弟將它翻做“法定不予專利事由”。
When the reference is not a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), (c), or (d), applicant can overcome the rejection by swearing back of the reference through the submission of an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131. In re Foster, 343 F.2d 980, 145 USPQ 166 (CCPA 1965). If the reference is disclosing applicant's own work as derived from him or her, applicant may submit either a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit to antedate the reference or a 37 CFR 1.132 affidavit to show derivation of the reference subject matter from applicant and invention by applicant. In re Facius, 408 F.2d 1396, 161 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1969).
關於37 CFR 1.131及37 CFR 1.132 affidavit等的部分，以後再做介紹。102(a)的部分還有一個要注意的地方，如果reference是屬於美國專利的話，則應該要考慮102(e)：
Note that when the reference is a U.S. patent published within the year prior to the application filing date, a 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection should be made. See MPEP § 2136 - § 2136.05 for case law dealing with 102(e).
上面所說的小弟也覺得很奇怪，為何reference是屬於美國專利的話，則一定要以102(e)來核駁，不過我想美專 102是採用負面表列的方式，所以 審查委員可以使用任何一項，若一個reference落入102(a)和102(e)的範圍內，審查委員可以查用任何一條。同樣道理若reference 已經符合102(b)時，就不需要用102(e)來核駁。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)