有關102(a)(2)例外條款102(b)(2)的筆記 - MPEP 2154.02

筆記

MPEP 2054.02一系列很精彩，就在解釋大家實在有點模糊的102(a)(2)的新穎性（即含顯而易知性前案）例外條款 --102(b)(2)，在此從我的角度整理一下。

[MPEP內容]
MPEP 2154.02    PRIOR ART EXCEPTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102(B)(2) TO AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(2)

See MPEP § 2154.02(a) for prior art exceptions to 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) based on the inventor-originated disclosure exception. See MPEP § 2154.02(b) for prior art exceptions to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) based on inventor or inventor-originated prior public disclosures as provided for in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B). See MPEP § 2154.02(c) the prior art exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) based on common ownership or obligation of assignment.

2154.02(A)    PRIOR ART EXCEPTION UNDER AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(B)(2)(A) TO AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(2) (INVENTOR-ORIGINATED DISCLOSURE EXCEPTION) [內容連結]

2154.02(B)    PRIOR ART EXCEPTION UNDER AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(B)(2)(B) TO AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(2) (INVENTOR OR INVENTOR-ORIGINATED PRIOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE EXCEPTION)  [內容連結]

2154.02(C)    PRIOR ART EXCEPTION UNDER AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(B)(2)(C) TO AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(2) (COMMON OWNERSHIP OR OBLIGATION OF ASSIGNMENT) [內容連結]

[35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)]

35 U.S.C. 102   CONDITIONS FOR PATENTABILITY; NOVELTY.

(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—

• (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151(核准公告), or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b)(專利公開), 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.

其中，關於102(a)(2)的例外，可見以下102(b)(2)(A), (B), (C)的筆記如下：

MPEP § 2154.02(a) -- 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A)

35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A)規定，若102(a)(2)規定的在專利申請案"有效申請日"前的公開內容係直接或間接由發明人或共同發明人所取得，並非先前技術（prior art）。

102(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;

MPEP筆記：此節例外條款限定在發明人自己的工作，當發明人的工作揭露在從發明人或共同發明人直接或間接取得的他人的「專利的公開、專利申請案的公開，或是WIPO申請案進入美國的公開」中，可排除此先前技術。

若專利申請案面對這類先前技術的核駁理由，申請人應提出宣示或聲明，說明先前技術內容的來源是從發明人或共同發明人所取得的。


MPEP § 2154.02(b) -- 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B)

35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B)規定，若102(a)(2)規定的在專利申請案"有效申請日"前的揭露內容"之前已被發明人或共同發明人，或直接或間接由發明人或共同發明人得到的他人所公開揭露（publicly disclosed）"，前述揭露內容並非先前技術。（也就是，發明人或共同發明人直接或間接的揭露內容可以排除之後被他人揭露的內容形成的先前技術，這可稱「先公開揭露主義」（我自己想的），雖好笑，卻也表示了這刻意保留了過去美國實施的先發明主義的概念，只是仍受限於1年優惠期）updated on April 28, 2022

102(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—

• (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

MPEP筆記：此節例外條款特別，是有別人揭露的內容日期（如其專利有效申請日）比由發明人、共同發明人或自發明人、共同發明人取得的他人"公開揭露（publicly disclosed）"還晚時，可以排除此先前技術。

若要排除先前別人的揭露內容，此條件是，發明人自己在先的揭露內容必須是「公開」的。但是，應該要注意的是，這裡為了要排除別人在先的揭露前案的"發明人自己更早的揭露內容"還得要符合優惠期的時間（專利有效申請日前一年內），否則自己的揭露內容也變成先前技術。updated on April 28, 2022

MPEP § 2154.02(c) -- 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C)

35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C)規定，若102(a)(2)規定的在專利申請案"有效申請日"前的揭露內容，是由相同人或經授權的相同人（申請人、專利權人、受讓人）所擁有，則非為先前技術。

102(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—

• (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.

MPEP筆記：此例外條款排除在專利有效申請日前的由同一人（指申請人、受讓人）的美國專利、美國專利申請公開或WIPO申請的美國公開案。

這裡有個註解，35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C)與AIA之前的103(c)不同，因為AIA後的同一人的先前專利、公開案可以排除102, 103的先前技術，而AIA之前的103(c)則僅排除作為103核駁前案，卻卻仍可用於102核駁引證。

經比對(102(b)(2)(C)與103(c)差異的結論：
"The consequence of this distinction is that a published application or an issued patent that falls under the common ownership exception of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) may not be applied in either an anticipation or an obviousness rejection."

my two cents:
當發現先前技術可能適用102(b)(2)的例外條款，卻不要欣喜，有些情況仍適用102(a)(1)核駁。
"the U.S. patent document that does not qualify as prior art as a result of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) may still be cited, in appropriate situations, to indicate the state of the art when making a lack of enablement rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)."

為了排除與自己相關（相同發明人、擁有人）先前技術，有時需要證明。

資料來源：
http://www.bitlaw.com

Ron