anticipation ii patent law sept. 16, 2004. novelty § 102 a person is not entitled to a patent if...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
216 views
TRANSCRIPT
Novelty § 102
A person is not entitled to a patentif the invention was:
• in the prior art (as defined by § 102 (a), (e), (g))
35 USC Sec. 120
• US Implementation of international “Paris Convention” for patent priority (1890) (www.wipo.org)
• Preserves US priority based on foreign priority filing
• “National Treatment” principle
In re Hafner
German Apps filed
1959Aug. 1960
1st US App filed
July, 1964
Expanded US App filed
Inter-vening Ref 1
Intervening Ref 2
Hafner, cont’d
• What is Hafner’s argument?
– What is “inconsistent and unfair”?
• What is Judge Rich’s holding?
Hafner, cont’d
• What is Hafner’s argument?
– What is “inconsistent and unfair”?
• What is Judge Rich’s holding?
– TOO BAD!
Use Disclosure
US Pat Application
1964 C-I-P
I have found this chemical useful for treating cancer . . .
In re Hafner
German Apps filed
1959 Aug. 1960
1st US App filed
July, 1964
Expanded US App filed
US Pat Application
1964 C-I-P
I have found this chemical useful for treating cancer . . .
+
What is Judge Rich’s Attitude About this result?
• See p. 381
• Is he right?
– Unfair?– Product (Structure) Claim . . .
Titanium Metals
Claim 1:
A titanium base alloy consisting essentially by weight of about 0.6% to 0.9% nickel, 0.2% to 0.4% molybdenum, up to 0.2% maximum iron, balance titanium, said alloy being characterized by good corrosion resistance in hot brine environments.
• Did the Russian article disclose all or many of the alloys claimed by Covington and Palmer?
• How many alloys claimed, how many disclosed in Russian article?
• Why should this anticipate?
Genus claimed by Titanium
Metals
Embodiments enabled and described in Russian publication
X 1 point on 1 graph in article; meets range limitations of claim
Corrosion Resistance Property
• What is Titanium Metals’ argument?
• What does Judge Rich say?
WHAT DO THE CLAIMS COVER?