美國案的問題 - 專利

102(f)的重點在於，誰才是發明人。即使他的發明最後被證實為不具新穎性。

102(f)與日期無關，重點在於“出處及來源”。

只要abc的發明，是原發明人自己想出來的，即便最後被證實abc為已知的，
那麼abc也還是abcd的發明人，他們對abcd還是有智能性的貢獻，要克服習知參考文獻
，僅需要一份宣誓書，即足夠克服102(f)的拒絕理由。

MPEP 2317

“[a] prior art reference that is not a statutory bar may be overcome by two
generally recognized methods”: an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131, or an
affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 “showing that the relevant disclosure is a
description of the applicant’s own work.”

35 U.S.C. 102(f) “does not require an inquiry into the relative dates of a
reference and the application”, and therefore may be applicable where
subsections (a) and (e) are not available for references.

The party or parties executing an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 are
presumed to be the inventors. Driscoll v. Cebalo, 5 USPQ2d 1477, 1481 (Bd.
Pat. Inter. 1982); In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA
1982)


--