A comparison of early publication practices in the United States and Europe

World Patent Information

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 117-122

  Adams, Stephen ^a  

^a Magister Ltd   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037410161     PISSN: 01722190     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0172-2190(03)00031-0     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Davidson C.M.R. The experience in Holland in respect to deferred examination of patent applications Nordiskst Immaterielt Rättsskydd 38 2 1969 156 164
2. Hoffman K. Three years experience with the deferred examination system in Germany Int. Rev. Indust. Property Copyright Law 3 2 1972 164-183
3. Anon. Annual Report of the European Patent Office 1981. München: Europäisches Patentamt, 1982
4. Banks MAL et al. The British Patent System; Report of the committee to examine the patent system and patent law. Cmnd. 4407. London: HMSO; 1970. p. 28
5. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. Patents, Designs and Trade Marks 1980. 98th Annual Report of the Comptroller-General. London: HMSO, 1981
6. For example, see Patents Act 1977, 25 & 26 Eliz. 2 ch. 37, s. 21
7. Kaback S.M. A patent searcher looks at the American Inventors Protection Act World Patent Inform. 24 4 2002 263-268
8. Anon. Hitachi's Application, Intellectual Property Decisions 1979; 2 (10): abstract no. 2176
9. United States Code (U.S.C.) Title 35, § 122(b)(2)(B)(i)
10. Anon. The 21st Century Strategic Plan. Washington DC: USPTO, June 3, 2002. Annex page P-67
11. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/aipa/infoexch.htm#cq
12. Anon. Deposits of biological materials in support of certain patent applications. Report no. GAO-01-49. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, October 2000
13. United States Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Title 37, § 1.217