用舊法中103(c)排除102(e)的引用前案 - 案例討論

美國舊專利法102(e)：
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b) [35 USC 122(b)], by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) [35 USC 351(a)] shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.

一些參考：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2008/09/102e.html

102(e)討論的大約就像是我們之到的擬制新穎性，也就是專利相關發明之前已經提出申請，不討論公開與否，當(1)若已經存在「發明完成前」由「他人」在「美國」已經提出申請的專利前案；(2)已有他人取得美國專利，不得准予專利。但如果在前申請案為IPC進入美國案，引用時應為英文公開。


如何克服102(e)核駁意見，MPEP2136.05告訴我們。

MPEP2136.05   Overcoming a Rejection Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
I.   A Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) REJECTION CAN BE OVERCOME BY ANTEDATING THE FILING DATE OR SHOWING THAT DISCLOSURE RELIED ON IS APPLICANT'S OWN WORK
證明申請日較早，或是證明申請人具有較早揭露的內容
 
II.   A Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) REJECTION CAN BE OVERCOME BY SHOWING THE REFERENCE IS DESCRIBING APPLICANT’S OWN WORK
證明先前文獻為申請人的發明

III.   APPLICANT NEED NOT SHOW DILIGENCE OR REDUCTION TO PRACTICE WHEN THE SUBJECT MATTER DISCLOSED IN THE REFERENCE IS APPLICANT’S OWN WORK
當揭露於先前文獻的技術為申請人的發明，不需證明已經完成發明
 
IV.   CLAIMING OF INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OR SUBCOMBINATIONS IN A COMBINATION CLAIM OF THE REFERENCE DOES NOT ITSELF ESTABLISH THAT THE PATENTEE INVENTED THOSE ELEMENTS
若主張專利範圍為先前文獻的個別元件或是整體發明的次組合（subcombination），但並非證明專利權人發明了這些元件

案例10/432,492
USPTO核駁意見（這裡僅討論102(e), 103(c)等議題）為提出Travis（GB2360603）結合Mihara，根據103(a)認為claim 1為顯而易見。
在之後的描述中，審查委員意識到Travis與本專利申請案有一致的發明人，但Travis有「較早申請日」，因此符合102(e)（較早申請日）規定的先前技術，並結合Mihara提出103(a)核駁意見。
但審查委員好意提出，這類核駁意見可以被克服，只要證明(1)本專利請求項與發明揭露但並未主張範圍的引證文獻為"同一發明人"；或是(2)證明本專利請求項發明完成日較已揭露但並未主張範圍的先前文獻的美國有效申請日更早；或是(3)提出宣示，說明申請案與先前文獻目前為同人所擁有，以及兩者有共同發明人，並同時提出終權聲明（terminal disclaimer）。

申請人對此核駁意見提出回覆，聲明先前文獻Travis與本申請案發明完成時為同人所擁有，並且發明人為同一人，因此先前文獻不符合102(e)所規範的先前文獻資格。

USPTO回應申請人答辯，參考35U.S.C.103(c)，針對claims 1-3, 5-6的引用前案Travis（GB2360603）與本發明在完成發明時，同樣由"Cambridge Flat Projection Displays Limited"所擁有，因此撤回35U.S.C.103(a)核駁理由。

此條表明"排除"符合102(e), (f), (g)等條文的先前技術的方式就是證明完成發明時前後申請案為同一人所擁有，或讓與同一人。（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2008/10/103c.html）
35U.S.C.103(c) Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102 of this title, shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.

Ron