1 / 8

35 USC § 102(g)(1) and (2)

35 USC § 102(g)(1) and (2). (g)(1) Inventor establishes [prior invention] and not abandoned, suppressed or concealed . . .” (g)(2) Invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed or concealed it.”. Peeler v Miller. 3.14.1966 Miller Conception.

olivia-owen
Télécharger la présentation

35 USC § 102(g)(1) and (2)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 35 USC § 102(g)(1) and (2) (g)(1) Inventor establishes [prior invention] and not abandoned, suppressed or concealed . . .” (g)(2) Invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed or concealed it.”

  2. Peeler v Miller 3.14.1966 Miller Conception Peeler et al. rely only on Filing Date: 1.4.1968 March, 1966: Miller R to P 4.27.1970 Miller Filing Date

  3. Peeler et al. (Chevron Researchers) Related Patent: 3,583,920 (1971)

  4. § 102(g) “Abandoned, Suppressed, or Concealed” Filing Date R to P

  5. Peeler points • “Counts” are basically claims • Special interference lingo • “Abandoned experiment” argument – basically, enablement • See Rosaire case

  6. Peeler points cont’d • P 458: “Which of the rival inventors has the greater right to a patent?” • Classic Judge Rich approach to invention priority issue • See also Paulik, p. 461 • “In our opinion, a four year delay from [R to P] to [filing] is prima facie unreasonably long . . .”

  7. Compare to Diligence -- §102(g)(2) Christie Reduction to practice Conception Conception R to P ONLY Seybold’s diligence matters

  8. Interferences – some fine points • Administrative §135 : USPTO Bd Pat Int & App.; appeal to Fed Cir under §134, 141 • OR appeal under §§ 145/146

More Related