| Patents > Search Colections > MPEP > 2126.02 Scope of Reference's Disclosure Which Can Be Used to Reject Claims When the Reference Is a "Patent" but Not a "Publication" - 2100 Patentability |
|
|
|
Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
2126.02 Scope of Reference's Disclosure Which Can Be Used to Reject Claims When the Reference Is a "Patent" but Not a "Publication" - 2100 Patentability
2126.02 Scope of Reference's Disclosure Which Can Be Used to Reject Claims When the Reference Is a "Patent" but Not a "Publication"
OFTEN UNCLAIMED DETAILS FOUND IN THE PATENT SPECIFICATION CAN BE RELIED ON EVEN IF PATENT IS SECRET
When the patented document is used as a patent and not as a publication, the examiner is not restricted to the information conveyed by the patent claims but may use any information provided in the specification which relates to the subject matter of the patented claims when making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b) or (d). Ex parte Ovist, 152 USPQ 709, 710 (Bd. App. 1963) (The claim of an Italian patent was generic and thus embraced the species disclosed in the examples, the Board added that the entire specification was germane to the claimed invention and upheld the examiner's 35 U.S.C. 102(b) rejection.); In re Kathawala, 9 F.3d 942, 28 USPQ2d 1785 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (The claims at issue where rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(d) by applicant's own parent applications in Greece and Spain. The applicant argued that the "invention ... patented in Spain was not the same 'invention' claimed in the U.S. application because the Spanish patent claimed processes for making [compounds for inhibition of cholesterol biosynthesis] and claims 1 and 2 were directed to the compounds themselves." 9 F.3d at 944, 28 USPQ2d at 1786. The Federal Circuit held that "when an applicant files a foreign application fully disclosing his invention and having the potential to claim his invention in a number of ways, the reference in section 102(d) to 'invention ... patented' necessarily includes all disclosed aspects of the invention." 9 F.3d at 945-46, 28 USPQ2d at 1789.)
In re Fuge, 272 F.2d 954, 957, 124 USPQ 105, 107 (CCPA 1959), does not conflict with the above decisions. This decision simply states "that, at the least, the scope of the patent embraces everything included in the [claim]." (emphasis added).
Note that the courts have interpreted the phrase "invention ... patented" in 102(a), (b), and (d) the same way and have cited decisions without regard to which of these subsections of 35 U.S.C. 102 was at issue in the particular case at hand. Therefore, it does not seem to matter to which subsection of 102 the cases are directed; the court decisions are interchangeable as to this issue.
The Inventors Assistance Center is available to help you on patent matters.Send questions about USPTO programs and services to the USPTO Contact Center (UCC). You can suggest USPTO webpages or material you would like featured on this section by E-mail to the webmaster@uspto.gov. While we cannot promise to accommodate all requests, your suggestions will be considered and may lead to other improvements on the website. |
|
|
Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
=online
business system 
=fees 
=forms
=help 
=laws/regulations 
=definition
(glossary)