※ 引述《ides13 (鬼)》之铭言： : 102(f)的重点在於，谁才是发明人。即使他的发明最後被证实为不具新颖性。 : 102(f)与日期无关，重点在於“出处及来源”。 : 只要abc的发明，是原发明人自己想出来的，即便最後被证实abc为已知的， : 那麽abc也还是abcd的发明人，他们对abcd还是有智能性的贡献，要克服习知参考文献 : ，仅需要一份宣誓书，即足够克服102(f)的拒绝理由。 : MPEP 2317 : “[a] prior art reference that is not a statutory bar may be overcome by two : generally recognized methods”: an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131, or an : affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 “showing that the relevant disclosure is a : description of the applicant’s own work.” : 35 U.S.C. 102(f) “does not require an inquiry into the relative dates of a : reference and the application”, and therefore may be applicable where : subsections (a) and (e) are not available for references. : The party or parties executing an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 are : presumed to be the inventors. Driscoll v. Cebalo, 5 USPQ2d 1477, 1481 (Bd. : Pat. Inter. 1982); In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA : 1982) No, I don't agree with you at this issue. 35 USC 102 (f) and its relavent rules are sections to define "who is the inventor in reality." If a reference is a description of one party's own work, said party can submit an affidavit or statement to declare that he is the real inventor. If a reference is filed or disclosed later than one party's conception, said party can submit an affidavit or statement to declare he/she make that conception earlier. In the case we discuss,however, the one did'nt make ABCD conception but the attorney did. In theorem, the one shall not overcome the bar by submitting documents under 37 CFR 1.131/1.132. In practice, however, it's hard to prove that the one only make ABC conception. The way overcoming the prior art by submitting said affidavit is based on the "Good Faith". That is, if one didn't make the invention, in this case, ABCD as a whole, himself, he should be resposible for his deception. --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 114.36.50.34 ※ 编辑: deathcustom 来自: 114.36.50.34 (12/20 17:45)