AIA指導手冊筆記

筆記

USPTO first inventor to file指導手冊：
http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/FITF_Final_Guidelines_FR_2-14-2013.pdf
http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/FITF_Final_Rule_FR_2-14-2013.pdf

可先參考：
（AIA 102）http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/10/aia102.html
（AIA 103）http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/10/103.html

一些要點：

審查委員審查中引用前案（prior art）將基於審查中專利申請案的有效申請日（effective filing date）前的專利、專利公開案，並參考這些前案的最早美國、國外、國際申請日；
先前發明活動排除了先前102條規定的先前在美國國內公開使用、販售作為主張”先前發明”的新穎性、進步性的判斷基礎；採用共同研究合同作為新穎性、進步性的先前活動的根據。
...treats patents and patent application publications as prior art as of their earliest effective U.S., foreign, or international filing date, eliminates the requirement that a prior public use or sale activity be ‘‘in this country’’ to be a prior art activity, and treats commonly owned or joint research agreement patents and patent application publications as being by the same inventive entity for purposes of novelty, as well as nonobviousness.

102(a)(1)不具新穎性的規定為，若發明之專利申請案有效申請日前，該發明已被專利、公開、公開使用、銷售或被公眾知悉，不予專利
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) provides that a person is not entitled to a patent if 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.

102(a)(2)不具新穎性的規定為，若發明已被他人先前申請的已領證專利所描述、專利申請案所公開，不予專利
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) provides that a person is not entitled to a patent if the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under 35 U.S.C. 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under 35 U.S.C. 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.
（35 U.S.C. 151 Issue of patent規定獲准的專利領證應於收到核准通知後三個月內繳領證費，否則專利權視為拋棄。）

102(b)規範102(a)的例外情事
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) sets forth exceptions to prior art established in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
102(b)
揭露的人為專利的發明人、共同發明人，或其他直接或間接由發明人或共同發明人授權取得的人；或發明被發明人、共同發明或其他被發明人授權取得的人所公眾公開，不影響新穎性之判斷。

AIA 35 U.S.C. 103規範基於專利申請案有效申請日作出發明是否具有顯而易見性，而並非基於發明完成日。其中顯而易見性的判斷僅簡單判斷符合102的引證案與發明的差異是否具有可專利性。

Ron