http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/09/09/defending-the-uspto-interpretation-of-the-new-grace-period/id=27903/
在AIA一般新穎性規定下（102(a)(1)），給了專利發明人/申請人1年新穎性優惠期（grace period，102(b)(1)），特別的是，在當中的102(b)(1)(B)。當美國專利制度從"first to invent"轉為"first to file"，但是仍與傳統的的"first to file"系統有差別。
傳統的"first to file"系統很單純，就用「申請日或優先權日」作為絕對新穎性的基準日，適格的先前技術為不限國內國外的任何形式的在前公開。
美國AIA後的"first to file"正確來說是，"first inventor to file"，提供「發明人」較為個人性的「新穎性優惠期」，可參看35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)：
35 U.S.C. 102 CONDITIONS FOR PATENTABILITY; NOVELTY.
(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.
摘錄美國聯邦記事（Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 144 /Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules）：
AIA後的35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A)提供的「新穎性先前技術的例外」包括「專利有效申請日」前一年內發明人或提供給別人的公開揭露；102(b)(1)(B)更包括「專利有效申請日」前一年內的揭露（包括他人的揭露）之前，若有發明人或提供別人的公開揭露，這個揭露也為無效先前技術。
然而，這裡仍值得一提，符合35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B)的新穎性例外的條件是，在先前揭露中的"專利標的（subject matter）"要與發明人在更早之前的揭露中的"專利標的"相同。因此，即便有此「方便之門」，但仍有門檻，想要適用102(b)(1)(B)的新穎性先前技術排除，在前的揭露要與審查委員引用的先前技術的揭露（比對到系爭專利的專利範圍/專利標的）有「相同的專利標的」。如果兩者有差異，即使是些微差異或變動，102(b)(1)(B)將不適用。
"Thus, the exception in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) requires that the subject matter in the prior disclosure being relied upon under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) be the same ‘‘subject matter’’ as the subject matter publicly disclosed by the inventor before such prior art disclosure for the exception in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) to apply. Even if the only differences between the subject matter in the prior art disclosure that is relied upon under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and the subject matter publicly disclosed by the inventor before such prior art disclosure are mere insubstantial changes, or only trivial or obvious variations, the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) does not apply."
然而，ipwatchdog.com表示一些反對意見。
102(b)(1)可參考前篇報導：
http://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/07/mpep-717.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
上段為2012年針對AIA即將施行的文章，再看另一篇2016年文章，十分豐富：
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/09/14/intervening-disclosures-aia/id=72636/
相關USPTO聯邦記事：
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-07-26/pdf/2012-17898.pdf
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言