「Traverse 」一詞是魔術用語，用來保留「Petition」的權利。

「Traverse 」一詞是魔術用語，用來保留「Petition」的權利。

Must Traverse To Preserve Right of Petition


MPEP 818.03(c) Must Traverse To Preserve Right of Petition:

"800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting

818.03(c) Must Traverse To Preserve Right of Petition

37 CFR 1.144 Petition from requirement for restriction.

After a final requirement for restriction, the applicant, in addition to making any reply due on the remainder of the action, may petition the Director to review the requirement. Petition may be deferred until after final action on or allowance of claims to the invention elected, but must be filed not later than appeal. A petition will not be considered if reconsideration of the requirement was not requested (see § 1.181).

If applicant does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election should be treated as an election without traverse and be so indicated to the applicant by use of form paragraph 8.25.02.

¶ 8.25.02 Election Without Traverse Based on Incomplete Reply

Applicant's election of [1] in the reply filed on [2] is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse ( MPEP § 818.03(a))."

可以再參考下面連結的文章：
enpan's Patent & Linux practice: With or Without Traverse after Restriction/Election:
"With or Without Traverse after Restriction/Election"

獨立項不具可專利性時，那麼獨立項的發明人還是附屬項的發明人嗎？

abc獨立項不具可專利性，且abcd附屬項可專利，但d由他人提供建議而得時，那麼獨立項的發明人還是附屬項的發明人嗎？

MPEP 2317

“[a] prior art reference that is not a statutory bar may be overcome by two generally recognized methods”: an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131, or an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 “showing that the relevant disclosure is a description of the applicant’s own work.”

35 U.S.C. 102(f) “does not require an inquiry into the relative dates of a reference and the application”, and therefore may be applicable where subsections (a) and (e) are not available for references.

The party or parties executing an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 are presumed to be the inventors. Driscoll v. Cebalo, 5 USPQ2d 1477, 1481 (Bd. Pat. Inter. 1982); In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)

102(f)的重點在於，誰才是發明人。即使他的發明最後被證實為不具新穎性。

102(f)的參考文獻與日期無關，重點在於“出處及來源”。

當其他人以提出一參考文獻，舉證發明人之abc發明已公開，並希望藉以證明：發明人之abc的發明是參考該文獻而不是發明人的原創。

則要克服習知參考文獻，發明人的舉證責任僅需要一份宣誓書，即足夠克服102(f)的拒絕理由。

只要abc的發明，是原發明人自己想出來的，即便最後被證實abc為已知的，那麼abc也還是其附屬項abcd的發明人，他們對abcd還是有智能性的貢獻。

PAIR 舉發的資料

在美國專利局之PUBLIC PAIR的網站中，

裡面會有 Continuity Data 的資料，
其中 9x/xxxxxx的案子即是被提re-examination的案子。

專利工程師提供意見，是否應視為發明人？

專利工程師提供意見，是否應視為發明人？

專利工程師所提供的概念，是與發明人溝通後衍生所產生，應視為衍生概念，因此不得列為發明人。

MPEP 2137:
"Adoption of the ideas and materials from another can become a derivation."

While derivation will bar the issuance of a patent to the deriver, a disclosure by the deriver, absent a bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), will not bar the issuance of a patent to the party from which the subject matter was derived. In re Costello, 717 F.2d 1346, 1349, 219 USPQ 389, 390-91 (Fed. Cir. 1983)

衍生概念是不准允衍生者取得專利權的事由，但是在沒有35 U.S.C. 102(b)之不准專利事由的情況下，衍生者的揭露內容不能阻卻發明人取得從其所衍生之主題的專利權。

DERIVATION REQUIRES COMPLETE CONCEPTION BY ANOTHER AND COMMUNICATION TO THE ALLEGED DERIVER

 “The mere fact that a claim recites the use of various components, each of which can be argumentatively assumed to be old, does not provide a proper basis for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(f).” Ex parte Billottet, 192 USPQ 413, 415 (Bd. App. 1976). Derivation requires complete conception by another and communication of that conception by any means to the party charged with derivation prior to any date on which it can be shown that the one charged with derivation possessed knowledge of the invention. Kilbey v. Thiele, 199 USPQ 290, 294 (Bd. Pat. Inter. 1978).

Derivation 要符合幾個要件：
1、他人的完整概念（complete conception by another）。
2、在證實衍生者已擁有該發明的知識的日期之前，透過任一方式，與該衍生者溝通該概念。

該衍生者（the party charged with derivation）；衍生者（the one charged with derivation）

將衍生者比喻為IFPE時：
       通常IFPE擁有該發明的知識，是與發明人溝通之後，亦即在溝通前IFPE不具有該發明 的知識。則前述第二點為：在IFPE不具有該發明的知識前，與IFPE溝通該概念。

 See also Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1190, 26 USPQ2d 1031, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Hedgewick v. Akers, 497 F.2d 905, 908, 182 USPQ 167, 169 (CCPA 1974). “Communication of a complete conception must be sufficient to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to construct and successfully operate the invention.” Hedgewick, 497 F.2d at 908, 182 USPQ at 169. See also Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 110 F.3d 1573, 1577, 42 USPQ2d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Issue in proving derivation is “whether the communication enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to make the patented invention.”).


Who should be named as an inventor on my patent application? | iPatent Attorney:
 "Who should be named as an inventor on my patent application?"

Conception is established when the invention is made sufficiently clear to enable one skilled in the art to reduce it to practice without the extensive experimentation to make the invention operative.

Merely hoping that something will work does not establish conception, since there is not a definite understanding or a reasonable expectation that the invention will work.

But simply suggesting an idea of a result to be accomplished, rather than the means of accomplishing it, does not make someone a co-inventor.


What is NOT an "Intellectual Contribution"

• supplying product for use in the invention 
• derivation (the complete conception of the invention and communication of that conception to another*) of the invention is not inventorship¤ * Kilbey v. Thiele, 199 USPQ 290, 294 (Bd. Pat. Inter. 1978). ¤ 35 USC 102f
• （發明的完整概念以及將概念與他人溝通之）發明的衍生不是發明人。

MPEP 2138.04 "Conception" [R-1]

AS LONG AS THE INVENTOR MAINTAINS INTELLECTUAL DOMINATION OVER MAKING THE INVENTION, IDEAS, SUGGESTIONS, AND MATERIALS MAY BE ADOPTED FROM OTHERS

An inventor may consider and adopt ideas, suggestions and materials derived from many sources: a suggestion from an employee, a hired consultant or a friend even if the adopted material proves to be the key that unlocks the problem so long as the inventor "maintains intellectual domination of the work of making the invention down to the successful testing, selecting or rejecting.." Morse v. Porter, 155 USPQ 280, 283 (Bd. Pat. Inter. 1965); Staehelin v. Secher, 24 USPQ2d 1513, 1522 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) ("evidence of conception naming only one of the actual inventive entity inures to the benefit of and serves as evidence of conception by the complete inventive entity").

發明人可以從朋友、員工或顧問亦即專利工程師等各種來源取得建議，只要是發明人保持智慧性的主導以完成測試，選擇或排除，而且即使該建議被證實是解開問題的關鍵。

【2012/12/19更新】
2000年的判例：

已清楚說明，專利律師的任務是幫助發明人取得專利，不能對抗發明人，因此專利律師不能當作發明人。


Intellectual Property Owners Association | Sandra Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. 00-1033:
" An attorney’s professional responsibility is to assist his or her client in defining her invention to obtain, if possible, a valid patent with maximum coverage. An attorney performing that role should not be a competitor of the client, asserting inventorship as a result of representing his client. Cf. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure app. R § 10.64 (7th ed.1998) ("Avoiding acquisition of interest in litigation or proceeding before the [Patent and Trademark] Office"). Thus, to assert that proper performance of the attorney’s role is a ground for invalidating the patent constitutes a failure to understand the proper role of a patent attorney. "