Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Different inventive entities under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) and affidavit practice under 37 C.F.R. 1.132

Article Abstract:

One patent situation without a simple solution happens when co-applicants file an application for a patent at the same time, but one was not an inventor of the earlier dislosed but unclaimed subject matters. If both applicants are really co-inventors, the Examiner may not allow the application through affidavit practice. There should, however, be a logical presumption that a 37 CFR 1.132 affidavit proves invention of all features of the current application found in the earlier patent.

Author: Capes, Nelson R., Hess, Rebecca D.
Publisher: Patent and Trademark Office Society
Publication Name: Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0882-9098
Year: 1999
Laws, regulations and rules, Patent licenses, Patent licensing

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Litigating obviousness: a new approach for using expert witnesses

Article Abstract:

'Clean room' offers an effective method for presenting expert testimony on obviousness in patent infringement cases. Proving or disproving that an invention was obvious in light of the prior art is the recurrent issue in infringement suits. In the clean room approach, the obviousness expert watches a group of people familiar with the prior art deal with the same problem that faced the inventor-litigant. Whether the results prove or disprove obviousness depends on their success.

Author: Sganga, John B., Jr.
Publisher: Patent and Trademark Office Society
Publication Name: Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0882-9098
Year: 1999
Usage, Testimony, Evidence, Expert, Expert evidence, Prior art (Patent law)

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Affidavit or declaration practice guideline

Article Abstract:

An outline describes the requirements and procedures for filing either an affidavit or a declaration as part of a larger patent application prosecution. Possible problems and solutions, and factors in determining whether an affidavit or a declaration should be filed, are included.

Author: Pak, Chung K.
Publisher: Patent and Trademark Office Society
Publication Name: Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0882-9098
Year: 1995
Management, Patents, Patent assignments

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States, Methods, Patent law, Patent practice
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: International arbitration under U.S. law and AAA rules. Bilateral investment treaties and arbitration
  • Abstracts: There is merit in merit pay. Competency profiles and merit pay at Reigate and Banstead. Merit on the menu at Pizza Hut
  • Abstracts: The White House counsel takes center stage. IP attorneys find the Net hits the mark; the Web sites of U.S. and foreign PTOs are among the online resources that can help counsel prosecute and police trademarks
  • Abstracts: Uphill but satisfying struggles of an animal rights attorney; federal legislation to aid animals is sadly lacking
  • Abstracts: Legal realism and the race question: some realism about realism on race relations. The new legal process, the synthesis of discourse, and the microanalysis of institutions
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2026 Advameg, Inc.