4 ms·

Here's the Bill. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1249 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1249: Looks like there IS prior art. There'

Here's the Bill. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1249 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1249: Looks like there IS prior art. There's a LOT but I wish it was written in a simpler manner. 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty ‘‘(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be enti- tled to a patent unless— ‘‘(1) the claimed invention was patented, de- scribed in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or ‘‘(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under sec- tion 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. ‘‘(b) EXCEPTIONS.— ‘‘(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BE- FORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed in- vention shall not be prior art to the claimed inven- tion under subsection (a)(1) if— VerDate Mar 15 2010 22:20 Jun 28, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1249.PCS H1249 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS6 HR 1249 PCS ‘‘(A) the disclosure was made by the inven- tor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indi- rectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or ‘‘(B) the subject matter disclosed had, be- fore such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. ‘‘(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICA- TIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if— ‘‘(A) the subject matter disclosed was ob- tained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; ‘‘(B) the subject matter disclosed had, be- fore such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed di- rectly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or ‘‘(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective VerDate Mar 15 2010 22:20 Jun 28, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1249.PCS H1249 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS7 HR 1249 PCS 1 filing date of the claimed invention, were owned 2 by the same person or subject to an obligation 3 of assignment to the same person. Soooooo we can still defensively publish yes?

btilly 15y ago
In principle, absolutely. In practice, maybe. If you defensively publish, the person who files the patent can still file within a year. If they learned about it from you, directly or indirectly, they are not supposed to do that. But now we're dependent upon their honesty, and their keeping sufficiently good records that we can prove that they did, in fact, learn it from us. People who'd be inclined to abuse that are unlikely to be honest, and are unlikely to keep good records of their dishonesty.
- URSpider94 15y ago
  I disagree with your reading of the bill, and with your interpretation of the current law. The one year grace period to file -ONLY- applies for the inventor who is filing the patent, or if the disclosure happens from a related party to the inventor. If a third party discloses the information before you file, then you can't receive a patent over and above that prior art.
  - btilly 15y ago
    On re-reading, I think you're right.

btilly 15y ago

In principle, absolutely. In practice, maybe. If you defensively publish, the person who files the patent can still file within a year. If they learned about it from you, directly or indirectly, they are not supposed to do that. But now we're dependent upon their honesty, and their keeping sufficiently good records that we can prove that they did, in fact, learn it from us. People who'd be inclined to abuse that are unlikely to be honest, and are unlikely to keep good records of their dishonesty.

URSpider94 15y ago
I disagree with your reading of the bill, and with your interpretation of the current law. The one year grace period to file -ONLY- applies for the inventor who is filing the patent, or if the disclosure happens from a related party to the inventor. If a third party discloses the information before you file, then you can't receive a patent over and above that prior art.
- btilly 15y ago
  On re-reading, I think you're right.