Novelty and Statutory Bars Intro to IP Prof Merges – 1.22.09.

Novelty and Statutory Bars

Intro to IP

Prof Merges – 1.22.09

Novelty § 102

A person is not entitled to a patentif the invention was:

• in the prior art (as defined by § 102 (a), (e), (g))

• barred under § 102 (b), (c), (d)

Base, with passageway

U-shaped bar

Cutting element attached to bar

Rotating handle at end of barCLAIM 1:ELEMENTS

Cheese Industry TodayNew Trends in Slicers

by J. Smith

Sample Publication

________________ New innovations _______________________________

______________various round, and____ .

______________ _______ Exciting : stainless steel

blades, , ___________ ________ ____________________

. The wire slides into a convenient

For tightened wire designs,

cutting bar shapes: U-shaped,

new cutting elements

tightened wire

attached to the bar passageway in the base.

tightening can be achieved by rotating the handle.


by J. Smith

________________ New innovations _______________________________



blades, , ___________ ________ ____________________


For tightened wire designs,



tightened wire


tightening can be achieved by rotating the handle.

Rotating handle at end of bar



U-shaped bar




U-shaped bar

NOVELTY REQUIREMENTNOT MET:NO PATENTGRANTED

Claim Elements Claim Elements in Publication


by J. Smith

Sample Publication: Revised

________________ New innovations _______________________________



blades, , ___________ ________ ____________________




tightened wire


Invention Compared with Prior Art


Cutting elementattached to bar

Base, withpassageway

U-shapedbar

SmithArticle

JonesPatent

AdamsSlicer

X X

X X

X X

INVENTIONNOT ANTICIPATEDNOVELTY REQT MET:

PATENT GRANTED

X

Novelty (Anticipation) [§ 102(a)] Versus Statutory Bars [§ 102(b)]

• Novelty/Anticipation concerned with NEWNESS – is it original to the patent applicant/patentee?

• Statutory Bars concerned with TIMELINESS – did the inventor file soon enough?

Critical Concept: the “Critical Date”

The Invention Date


The Invention Date

The Prior Art

Earlier Invention, Earlier “Critical Date,” LESS PRIOR ART

The Invention Date

The Prior Art

Conception: Summer 1886

Reduction to practice:

7/12/1886

Novelty Critical Date Example

Filed: 6/7/1889

Unpacking the “invention date”

Rosaire v. Baroid

Palestine, Texas

Horvitz publications

Horvitz, L., 1939. On Geochemical Prospecting. Geophysics, V. 4, No. 3, pp. 210-228. Horvitz, L., 1945. Recent Developments in Geochemical Prospecting for Petroleum. Geophysics, V. 10, pp. 487-493. Horvitz, L., 1950. Chemical Methods. In: J.J. Jakosky (Editor), Exploration Geophysics (2d ed.). Trija Publishing, Los Angeles, pp. 938-965. Horvitz, L., 1969. Hydrocarbon Geochemical Prospecting After Thirty YearsHorvitz, L., 1972. Vegetation and Geochemical Prospecting for Petroleum. AAPG Bull., V. 56, pp. 925-940. Horvitz, L., 1985. Near-surface Hydrocarbons and Non-hydrocarbon Gases in Petroleum Exploration. Presented at: Asso. Petrol. Geochem. Explor. AAPG Rocky Mountain Section, Denver, Colo., June, 1985.

Rosaire v Baroid

Section 102(a): A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –

(a) The invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.

(a) The invention was known or used by others in this country

- Note the national limitation here- What does it mean to be “known or

used”?- Why was Teplitz team’s use not enough

by itself to anticipate?

Rosaire (cont’d)

• Rosaire’s argument – – Top of p. 404

• Court’s response --

Rosaire v Baroid

With respect to the argument advanced by appellant that the lack of publication of Teplitz's work deprived an alleged infringer of the defense of prior use, we find no case which constrains us to hold that where such work was done openly and in the ordinary course of the activities of the employer, a large producing company in the oil industry, the statute is to be so modified by construction as to require some affirmative act to bring the work to the attention of the public at large.

In re Hall

• Section 102(b) case– But: same standard for “publication” under

102(a) and 102(b)– See Rosaire case

• Reissue patent application

– “Protest” during reissue

Foldi Thesis -- Freiburg

Freiburg

Evidence of “publicness”

• Index cataloguing

• Open to public

Novelty vs. statutory bars

• Novelty: who was first? (Measured from date of invention)

• Statutory bar: did you file on time? (Measured from date of filing)

§ 102. Novelty and loss of right to patent

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or

(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or . . . .

§ 102. Novelty and loss of right to patent

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless

(a) the invention was known or used by others … before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or

(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed

publication …, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or . . . .

Statutory bars v. novelty

–102(a) – Novelty; 102(b) – Statutory bars

–Different as to (1) who may create prior art; (2) the categories of prior art; and (3) the critical date for determining prior art


The Invention Date


The Invention Date

The Prior Art

Earlier Invention, Earlier “Critical Date,” LESS PRIOR ART

The Invention Date

The Prior Art

Statutory Bar Dates

One Year Grace Period

Dec. 20, 1996

PatentApplication

JonesJones

Oct. 1995 Dec. 19, 1995

Jones

Dec. 19, 1996

Section 102(b) BarOne Day Gap

Statutory Bars § 102(b), (c), (d)

An inventor loses the right to patent if, more than one year prior to the applicant’s filing, the invention was:

• patented by another anywhere• patented by the applicant in a foreign country-- § d• described in a printed publication anywhere• in public use in the US• on sale in the US

(strict identity not required)

Egbert v. Lippmann

• Statutory bars v. novelty

–102(a) – Novelty; 102(b) – Statutory bars

–Different as to (1) who may create prior art; (2) the categories of prior art; and (3) the critical date for determining prior art

Egbert v. Lippmann

• Why not a novelty case?

• What are the essential facts: use a timeline

Corset Springs

Egbert (cont’d)

• Conception, Jan – May 1855

• R to P: May, 1855 (?)

• 1858: Second pair of springs

• Patent app filed: March 1866

Egbert

• Only 1 used – enough?

• “Non-informing public use”

–Why enough to constitute a bar?

Conclusion

• “The inventor slept on his rights for 11 years . . .” –

Samuel F. Miller, on Court 1860-1890

Miller Dissent

‘‘It may well be imagined that a prohibition to the party so permitted [to use the springs] against her use of the steel spring to public observation, would have been supposed to be a piece of irony.’’ 104 U.S. (14 Otto), at 339.

Novelty and Statutory Bars Intro to IP Prof Merges – 1.22.09.

Documents

Transcript of Novelty and Statutory Bars Intro to IP Prof Merges – 1.22.09.