※ 引述《abcalmighty ( )》之銘言： : 請問各位先進 : 請參閱下列時間軸 : 本案 : 引證案 優先權 本案 : 申請日 日期 申請日 : 　　———|————————|——|———→　時間 : 2010 2011 2011 : 02/06 01/11 03/30 : 引證案為發明人自己發表的paper : 雖然本案主張的優先權日還未超過一年，但是申請日已經超過了... : 因此審委就用102(b)來核駁本案的新穎性 : 這樣的話，還有其他辦法可以remove掉引證案嗎？ : 還是已經沒救了...~"~ 根據原po與V大的推文討論，我引述MPEP中幾個案例來說明本案審查委員 對102(b)的解讀錯誤 102(b)中的"printed publication"的定義 根據下述案例 In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 210 USPQ 790 (CCPA1981) (quoting I.C.E. Corp. v. Armco Steel Corp., 250F. Supp. 738, 743, 148 USPQ 537, 540 (SDNY 1966)) In any event, interpretation of the words'printed' and 'publication' to mean 'probability of dissemination' and 'public accessibility' respectively, now seems to render their use in the phrase 'printed publication' somewhat redundant. 再根據MPEP2128最後一段 A JOURNAL ARTICLE OR OTHER PUBLICATION BECOMES AVAILABLE AS PRIOR ART ON DATE OF IT IS RECEIVED BY A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC A publication disseminated by mail is not prior art until it is received by at least one member of the public. Thus,a magazine or technical journal is effective as of its date of publication (date when first person receives it) not the date it was mailed or sent to the publisher. In re Schlittler,234 F.2d 882, 110 USPQ 304 (CCPA 1956). 既然連"寄給出版商"都不算public，還在審查最好是見鬼的公開了 請你們的美國代理人(事務所)引用這個案例去幹翻審查委員吧 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 210.59.205.23