有關美國新法35 USC 102(b)(2)(c) - 專利

Brianna avatar
By Brianna
at 2018-04-14T01:54

Table of Contents

※ 引述《Cortisone (可體松)》之銘言:
: 標題: Re: [問題] 有關美國新法35 USC 102(b)(2)(c)
: 時間: Thu Apr 12 01:12:05 2018
:
: 以下為了閱讀方便分成102(a)(1)和102(a)(2)
:
: (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described 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;
:
:
: (b) EXCEPTIONS.—
:
: (1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE
: CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective
: filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed
: invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
:
: (A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another
: who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the
: inventor or a joint inventor; or
:
: (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before 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.
:
: --
:
: (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section
: 151 , or in an application for patent published or deemed published under
: section 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.—
:
: (2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall
: not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—
:
: (A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the
: inventor or a joint inventor;
:
: (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before 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 directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
:
: (C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than
: the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same
: person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
:
:
: ※ 引述《PumpkinHead (PumpkinHead)》之銘言:
: : 請問版上的各位大大
: : 最近讀到美國新法35 USC 102(b)(2)(c) 新穎性喪失之例外
: : 以下法條原文
: : 102(b)(2)
: : Exceptions.- DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS- A disclosure
: : shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if-
: : (c) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the
: : effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the the same
: : person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
: : 所以說根據這法條 一間公司所擁有的專利都不會變成該公司往後專利申請案的先前技術
: : 了嗎 ??
: : 一個專利菜鳥的疑問 希望大家不吝指教
: : 謝謝~
:
: 如果不符合紅底的部分根本就逃不過102(a)(1),
:
: 如果你逃過102(a)(1),然後又符合102(a)(2)的exception,才可以不被視為prior art
: 、被用102打。
:
: --
Tags: 專利

All Comments

Ursula avatar
By Ursula
at 2018-04-14T14:24
Madame avatar
By Madame
at 2018-04-15T20:42
感謝補充 (看原原PO語意好像沒實際看到被哪條reject)XD
Eartha avatar
By Eartha
at 2018-04-19T20:30
推推 感謝版上各位大大的講解
Rosalind avatar
By Rosalind
at 2018-04-22T13:22
因為只是單純在讀法條 沒有遇到實際的案例 所以才沒
Rae avatar
By Rae
at 2018-04-24T20:52
頭沒腦的問了這個問題XD

專利抽象概念測試的不確定性,可能影響AI

Ida avatar
By Ida
at 2018-04-13T17:55
[情報]專利抽象概念測試的不確定性,可能影響AI、IoT及機器人產業 [來源]https://bit.ly/2IN0GDN [內容] 在Purepredictive v. H2O.ai案,美國加州北部地區法院(J. Orrick)基於H2O.aiand#39;s動 議,同意駁回專利侵權訴訟。法院裁定,美國 ...

蘋果公司新專利:涵蓋LiDAR探測和擋風玻

Jack avatar
By Jack
at 2018-04-13T10:37
[情報] 蘋果公司新專利:涵蓋LiDAR探測和擋風玻璃上顯示信息 http://bit.ly/2GRbFQa 蘋果公司的AI開發計畫Project Titan,終於在2018年美國USPTO申請專利中開始出現。雖 然,像特斯拉這樣的其他公司正在爭奪自動駕駛汽車市場,但自動駕駛車輛尚未準備好迎 接黃金時代, ...

有關美國新法35 USC 102(b)(2)(c)

Wallis avatar
By Wallis
at 2018-04-12T01:12
以下為了閱讀方便分成102(a)(1)和102(a)(2) (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise avail ...

有關美國新法35 USC 102(b)(2)(c)

Emily avatar
By Emily
at 2018-04-11T23:51
請問版上的各位大大 最近讀到美國新法35 USC 102(b)(2)(c) 新穎性喪失之例外 以下法條原文 102(b)(2) Exceptions.- DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS- A disclosure shall not be ...

對於TRPG的專利權問題

Ida avatar
By Ida
at 2018-04-11T18:05
※ 引述《alfand (alf)》之銘言: : 先介紹一下TRPG : 是一種桌上遊戲類型 : 有許多不同的系統 ex.Dandamp;D CoC : 系統規範了遊戲進行的方式、世界觀、如何創立角色 : 玩家將扮演自己創造的角色在不同的劇本下遊玩 : 1.遊戲進行的方式算是專利嗎? : 2.角色的數值化方式 ...