If we apply the provisions of 35 states.C. 102 (b) (2) (C) provides 35 U.S.C. 102 (c) that a joint research agreement can demonstrate that the disclosed object and a claimed invention are considered the property of the same person or an obligation to transfer to the same person if the following three conditions are met: A. Disclosure was made by the common inventor or inventor or by another who acquired the object directly or indirectly disclosed. A. the common inventor or inventor; or 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) (1) provides that a disclosure made one year or less before the actual filing date of a claimed invention must not be under 35 U. C S. 102 (a) (1) with respect to the claimed invention, if: 1) disclosure is made by the inventor or co-inventor or by another who received the object directly or indirectly disclosed by the inventor or common inventor, was made; or (2) prior to this disclosure, the disclosed object had been made public by the inventor or common inventor or by another who received the object disclosed directly or indirectly by the common inventor or inventor. However, the provisions of 37 CFR 1.130 would be available if: (1) The rejection is based on disclosure other than a U.S. patent application or publication of U.S.
patent applications (z.B. non-patent or foreign patent document); (2) the rejection is based on a U.S. patent or a U.S. patent application and the pending patent or application does not claim an invention that is the same or, in essence, the invention claimed by the plaintiff; or (3) the rejection is based on a U.S. patent or a U.S. patent application and the pending patent or application; claims an invention that is the same or, in essence, the plaintiff`s claimed invention, but the affidavit or statement in paragraph 37 CFR 1.130 does not claim that an inventor named in the U.S. patent or patent application inferred the claimed invention from the inventor or inventor common with the indication in the application or patent (patent). z.B. a statement or affidavit under 37 CFR 1.130 would be available if the affidavit or statement referred to in 37 CFR 1.130, instead of the derivation claim, asserts that the object disclosed prior to publication or prior to the actual presentation of that object by the common inventor or other inventor who received the object disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or inventor , has been made public. 18I hope that the possibility that the secret state of the art does not exclude future patenting is a premium over confidentiality agreements and trade secrets.
Posted In: Uncategorized