Posts Tagged: 102(b)


The questions asked of the USPTO, and specifically Director Kappos, related to the USPTO interpretation of the grace period in 102(b)(1)(B). At one point, in response to a question, Direct Kappos responded: “We are reading the words just …

Continue Reading

Many people situated variously within and outside of the patent system of the United States urged the adoption of first-to-file. There are, however, many questions about the scope and possible impact of the AIA. Exactly how it will all …

Continue Reading

So what does this AIA “mumbo jumbo” mean in plain English? Well, to me and especially to others who have previously opined on this provision of the AIA, it means you not only don’t blow “novelty” in the …

Continue Reading

If (B) gives a blanket exclusion to subject matter, which cannot be used as prior art after a disclosure by an inventor, that would lead to nearly ridiculous results. Imagine for example that an inventor discloses a specific embodiment …

Continue Reading

The ink is hardly dry on the Supreme Court decision in Stanford v. Roche and already those who oppose patent reform are concocting one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen to oppose first to file provisions. …

Continue Reading

The trouble with explaining what prior art is stems from the fact that everyone already thinks they know what it is. Conceptually we do not want to issue patents for inventions that are not considered new, which seems fair …

Continue Reading