Antedating 102e reference dating industry news

We also have exclusive FTA Video Tutorials produced by the Good FTA Staff that walk you through common setup, scanning, loading and trouble shooting videos to guide you through the process of setting up popular FTA Receivers.Captive Works 700 FTA Receiver The Captive Works 700 is the new entry level FTA receiver from Captive Works that features one USB port on the front for easy software updating with a USB flash drive. Which of the following, if properly submitted by applicant, would overcome the rejection in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP? MPEP E8R8, 706.02(b) has several answers, the most confusing of which relative to this discussion is: Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing that the reference invention is not by “another.” See MPEP, E8R8, § 715.01(a), § 715.01(c), and § 716.10. Another is that the issued subject matters between them are obvious(ODP), then you can file a terminal disclaimer. See MPEP E8R8 – 706.02(l)(1)(I), MPEP at 700-55 (“35 U. ] FUTURE TEST QUESTIONS: What WOULD be effective (or a tricky test question)? patent define the same patentable invention as defined in 37 CFR 1.601(n). (B) File a declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 to establish the inventor invented the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference X. However, note that in the question, the 1.131 affidavit is just showing the date of inventorship of the application subject matter and not arguing the SCOPE of what H invented versus what S invented in the reference patent X. MSCJ I think it is possible but not easy because of the additional inventor S The claims of the patent application and U. I think that if you file an affidavit 1.132, it would be a double patenting. One is that the issued subject matters between them are same, then you cannot overcome the double patenting rejection under U. When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section. Only thing I would like to point out is that since they are commonly owned, there will be no possibility of an interference. (A) File a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(c). This route requires H and S to argue between themselves as to the scope of their respective contributions to the “same patentable invention.” Note that MPEP, E8R8, 715.01(a), at 700-276 to 277 makes this answer even MORE confusing, because it requires the examiner to treat 1.131 affidavits as 1.132 affidavits if improperly filed. In reality, there should be a double patenting rejection. Anyway, this Q go to a double patenting as Sol’s thought. I think 1.131 is swearing back (prior invention argument) and 1.132 is used during a reexam CFR 1.132 §1.132 Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections.After inputting your zip code, the geo locating software in Sex Messenger will display these members within a given distance from your location.

Under these circumstances, the examiner must determine whether a double patenting rejection or interference is appropriate. 102(e) is the only possible rejection, the examiner must determine whether an interference should be declared. 119(a)-(d) within the time period set in 37 CFR 1.55(a)(1) or filing a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c). The foreign priority filing date must antedate the reference and be perfected. 112, first paragraph; or (F) Perfecting benefit under 35 U. RESPONSE: A terminal disclaimer is ineffective to overcome the 102(e) rejection because no double patenting rejection is YET pending. And more pointedly, if interference proceedings were necessary, the patent application would still be barred by 102(e) ANSWER (B) File a declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 to establish the inventor invented the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference X. 102 is not affected, and may still be used to reject claims as being anticipated.”); see also 715.01(b) (arguing this more explicitly vis-à-vis 102(e) rejections).

(1) Disclosures made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.— A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if— (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.

(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or (C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.

On May 1, 2001, a complete patent application was filed with the USPTO naming H as the sole inventor. The patent was granted on September 25, 2001 on an application filed on December 7, 2000. (C) File a declaration stating that the application and patent are currently owned by the same party, and that the inventor named in the application is the prior inventor under 35 USC 104. Other than than you are spot on with the 1.132 reasoning.

A primary examiner rejected all the claims in the application under 35 USC 102(e) as being anticipated by a U. One other learning point is the not so tested concept of 1.130 affidavits, which are used in a 103 rejection to disqualify commonly owned prior art, coupled with a terminal disclaimer (this can use current ownership as opposed to ownership/assignment at time of later invention).