Joint Research Agreement 102(C)
However, the provisions of 37 CFR 1.130 would be available if: (1) The rejection is based on disclosure other than a U.S. patent application or publication of U.S. patent applications (z.B. non-patent or foreign patent document); (2) the rejection is based on a U.S. patent or a U.S. patent application and the pending patent or application does not claim an invention that is the same or, in essence, the invention claimed by the plaintiff; or (3) the rejection is based on a U.S. patent or a U.S. patent application and the pending patent or application; claims an invention that is the same or, in essence, the plaintiff`s claimed invention, but the affidavit or statement in paragraph 37 CFR 1.130 does not claim that an inventor named in the U.S. patent or patent application inferred the claimed invention from the inventor or inventor common with the indication in the application or patent (patent).
z.B. a statement or affidavit under 37 CFR 1.130 would be available if the affidavit or statement referred to in 37 CFR 1.130, instead of the derivation claim, asserts that the object disclosed prior to publication or prior to the actual presentation of that object by the common inventor or other inventor who received the object disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or inventor , has been made public. A. disclosure of the common inventor or inventor or another who received the disclosed object directly or indirectly from the common inventor; or CONTINUITY OF INTENT UNDER THE CREATE ACT. – The adoption of Section 102 (c) of Title 35, The United States Code, in accordance with paragraph 1 of this subsection, is done with the same intention of promoting joint research activities, which are made, including in the history of the legislation, by the passage of the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-453; whose amendments are made by Section c) of this section. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office manages Title 35, a U.S. official, in a manner consistent with the legislative history of the CREATE Act, which was relevant to its administration by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 37 CFR 1.130 (a) provides that the applicant or patent holder, in the event of a resensitization of a claim or patent, may file a declaration or declaration of disqualification as a state of the art by demonstrating that the disclosure was made by the common inventor or that the disclosed object was obtained directly or indirectly by the inventor or inventor.
37 CFR 1.130 (a) refers to the provisions of point A of 35 U. C S. 102 (b) (1)) and 102 (b) (2). 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) (1) (A) provides that a disclosure made one year or less before the actual filing date of a claimed invention was not made in the state of the art of the invention claimed in point 35 U. C S. 102 (1), if the disclosure was made by the common inventor or by any other common inventor who received the object disclosed directly or indirectly by the common inventor or inventor of the common inventor or inventor. , by the inventor or a common inventor and 35 U. C S. 102 (b) (2) (A) (A) provide that a disclosure does not correspond to the state of the art of an invention claimed at 35 U.S.C 102a(a) (2) if the disclosed object was obtained directly or indirectly by the inventor or by a common inventor. The evidence required to demonstrate that the subject matter of disclosure was previously disclosed or comes from a common inventor or inventor requires a case-by-case analysis.
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102b) (1)) (B), the nature of disclosure by the common inventor or other object disclosed directly or indirectly by the common inventor (. B, for example, patenting, publication, public use, sales activity) is identical to disclosure of the interim disclosure of the additional time.