關於102(e)拒絕理由的答辯方向

關於102(e)拒絕理由的答辯方向

美國智財局內部的訓練教材。
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/mpep_examguide.html

其中有一項關於102(e)的訓練教材
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2003/week02/patguid.htm


IV) Examination Procedures under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) and 374
(1) Determine the effective filing date(s) of the application being examined.
(2) Determine and perform an appropriate prior art search.
(3) Determine if the potential reference under 102(e) is "by another."
(4) Determine the appropriate 102(e) date for each potential reference by following the guidelines below and examples set forth under Part V:
(5) Determine whether 35 U.S.C. 103(c) common assignee considerations apply.

If a 102(e) reference is applied in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) (including provisional rejections) in an application filed on or after November 29, 1999 iv, the examiner should ascertain whether there is evidence that the claimed invention and the reference were owned by the same person, or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person, at the time the claimed invention was made. A clear statement of entitlement to the prior art exclusion by applicant(s) or a registered practitioner would be sufficient evidence to establish the prior art exclusion. A double patenting rejection, however, based on the 102(e) reference could be applied, if appropriate, even if the reference is disqualified from being used a rejection under 103(a). See MPEP 706.02(l), Eighth Edition (Aug. 2001).

如上所述，克服102(e)前案的作法整理如下四種：
(1)：103(a)規定只有在“by another”的情況下才能當作引證案，所以可以依37CFR1.132，請每位發明人提宣誓書，宣誓前案及後案的發明不是“by another”。
(2)：因美國係以發明日進行審查，因此可以提後案的發明日早於前案的證據。
(3)依37CFR1.130宣誓申請人相同，並提terminal disclaimer。
(4)因103(C)有規定不適合當作前案的一些例外，若符合“the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person”的前案，即可直接以103(C)說明，前案為不適合的引證案。

以第4種方法答辯，對公司取得權利後的影響最小，建議以第4種方式答辯，但必須修正請求項範圍，讓前案和後案的範圍不要完全相同，藉以克服102(e)，隨後可能會再次遇到以先前的適用102(e)的前案及103(a)的拒絕理由，因此必須再依103(c)排除102(e)的前案。