-
1
-
-
0030005261
-
A benchside guide to patents and patenting
-
This discusses four criteria by which patentability is assessed: Novelty, nonobviousness, sufficiency of the disclosure, and utility
-
Johnson, E.A. 1996. A benchside guide to patents and patenting, Nature Biotechnology 14:228-291. This discusses four criteria by which patentability is assessed: Novelty, nonobviousness, sufficiency of the disclosure, and utility.
-
(1996)
Nature Biotechnology
, vol.14
, pp. 228-291
-
-
Johnson, E.A.1
-
2
-
-
14744300935
-
Utility in biotech patent applications
-
Naming correct inventors on a patent application can require its own investigation. “Inventor” is a legal category; authorship on a publication does not necessarily establish inventorship. We do not mean to imply herein that membership in a research group automatically confers inventorship status
-
Linck, N.J. and Chambers, S.A. 1995. Utility in biotech patent applications, Bio/Technology 13:962. Naming correct inventors on a patent application can require its own investigation. “Inventor” is a legal category; authorship on a publication does not necessarily establish inventorship. We do not mean to imply herein that membership in a research group automatically confers inventorship status.
-
(1995)
Bio/Technology
, vol.13
, pp. 962
-
-
Linck, N.J.1
Chambers, S.A.2
-
4
-
-
84984780621
-
-
What is prior art is defined by 35 USC. §102; prior art is used by the PTO in rejecting claims as obvious under 35 USC. §103
-
What is prior art is defined by 35 USC. §102; prior art is used by the PTO in rejecting claims as obvious under 35 USC. §103.
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
84984779488
-
-
The term “secret prior art” is not a term of art. It is most often used to refer to patent applications pending in the PTO, which are not published. Once a patent issues on an application, however, that patent is effective prior art as of the application filing date, even though a member of the public could not have gained access to the United States application before issuance of the patent. See 35 USC §102(e). In contrast, most other countries publish patent applications at some set time after the filing date. The previous work may be defined as prior art under 35 USC. §102(f) (subject matter invented by another) or §102(g) (the invention was made in the US by another before the applicant’s date of invention). 35 USC. §103(c) states: “Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under subsection (f) or (g) of section 102 of this title, shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.” SeeMPEP§706.02(m)
-
The term “secret prior art” is not a term of art. It is most often used to refer to patent applications pending in the PTO, which are not published. Once a patent issues on an application, however, that patent is effective prior art as of the application filing date, even though a member of the public could not have gained access to the United States application before issuance of the patent. See 35 USC §102(e). In contrast, most other countries publish patent applications at some set time after the filing date. The previous work may be defined as prior art under 35 USC. §102(f) (subject matter invented by another) or §102(g) (the invention was made in the US by another before the applicant’s date of invention). 35 USC. §103(c) states: “Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under subsection (f) or (g) of section 102 of this title, shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.” SeeMPEP§706.02(m).
-
-
-
-
6
-
-
0030048912
-
Habits of highly successful international patent applicants
-
Superko, C. Habits of highly successful international patent applicants. Bio/Technology 14:41-42.
-
Bio/Technology
, vol.14
, pp. 41-42
-
-
Superko, C.1
-
7
-
-
84984779469
-
-
See MPEP §706.02(1), which states that “the terms “person” and “organization” in [37 CFR §1.104] would include circumstances where the ownership resided in more than one person and/or organization as long as the applications are owned jointly by the same owners.” MPEP §706.02(1). 35 USC. §116
-
See MPEP §706.02(1), which states that “the terms “person” and “organization” in [37 CFR §1.104] would include circumstances where the ownership resided in more than one person and/or organization as long as the applications are owned jointly by the same owners.” MPEP §706.02(1). 35 USC. §116.
-
-
-
-
8
-
-
84984770980
-
-
The “first-to-invent” system of the United States contrasts with most foreign countries, where the first inventor who files a patent application is entitled to the patent which issues for that invention, even where another person independently invented the same item at an earlier date, but filed a later application. I.e., the ability to use 35 USC §102(f), (g) and (e) prior art in making §103 obviousness rejections
-
The “first-to-invent” system of the United States contrasts with most foreign countries, where the first inventor who files a patent application is entitled to the patent which issues for that invention, even where another person independently invented the same item at an earlier date, but filed a later application. I.e., the ability to use 35 USC §102(f), (g) and (e) prior art in making §103 obviousness rejections.
-
-
-
|
