Two Days SB Seminar:

Basics of U.S. Patent iAgendaj

 

September 24 (Tue) and September 25 (Wed)

at Studebaker Brackett PC in Reston, Virginia

 

July 31, 2013

Studebaker Brackett PC.

 

This two days seminar (about 5-6 Hrs. each day) will be mainly conducted by Tatsuo YABE in Japanese language.  The seminar was originally designed for elementary level JP trainees to grasp, within few hours, essentials and fundamentals of the U.S. Patent Laws/practices. This seminar, however, will also be useful for intermediate level JP trainees who desire quick review & confirm what he/she has learned since coming to the States as a trainee. Also, this seminar is recommended to those who have had questions but has been hesitant to ask because of communication in non-Japanese language.  Mr. Yabe is all yours for two days to strengthening your knowledge and deepening your understanding.

 

 

Dates

TOPICS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Day 1

(1/2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sep. 24, 2013

 

1.5 Hrs – 2 Hrs

ก@Fundamentals of U.S. Patent Laws and Unique Features of U.S. Patent

•ฤ‘“ม‹–‘S”ส“I‚ศŠ๎‘b’mŽฏ

 

-          U.S. Constitution and U.S. Patent Laws

-          Brief History of U.S. Patent Laws (1952 Patent Act; 1995 Act; 1999 Act; 2011 Act)

-          Who is gInventorh?@(Declaration by Inventorj

-          Can you file a JP application for the invention made in the States?

-          Can you file a US application after disclosure of the invention?

-          Can you make a product if you have a U.S. patent covering the product? 

Right to Exclude v. Right to Practice your Invention

-          What is gIDSh?  Why do we have to produce information adverse to obtain patent?

-          (101๐: Patent Eligibility)

-          i102๐F@Noveltyj Pre-AIA 102 and AIA 102

-          i103๐F@Obviousnessj Is earlier filed application used as 103 reference?

-          i103๐F@Obviousnessj STDs to evaluate Obviousness

-          i112๐F‘ๆ1€jW-DG@EnablementG@Best ModeH

-          i112๐F‘ๆ3`‘ๆ5€j Independent/Dependent/Multiple-Dependent Claims

-          i112๐F‘ๆ6€j What is gMeans plus Functionh claim? Good or Bad?

-          Approximate cost to obtain U.S. PatentH

-          How to deal with FINAL OFFICE ACTION

-          Doc. Of Equivalents iJP & US Comparisonj

-          Who ultimately interpret claims? Jury or Judges? Do they have technical background?

-          and morec.!

 

กQ&As

 

 

 

 

Day 1

(2/2)

 

 

 

 

 

Sep. 24, 2013

 

1.5 Hrs – 2 Hrs

ก@•ฤ‘“ม‹––@‘ๆ101๐\Patent Eligibility

 

-          35 U.S.C. 101

-          Case LawsF Chakrabarty (1980); State Street Bank (1997); In re Nuijten (2007); Bilski (2010), Prometheus (2012); and CLS bank (2013); Myriad (2013);

-          Non-patentable subject matters (abstract idea; naturally phenomenon; usable only for illegal purpose; computer-program per sec.)

-          PTOfs Guideline in view of Prometheus (2012)@

 

ก@•ฤ‘“ม‹––@‘ๆ102๐ – Novelty under Pre-AIA and AIA

Pre-AIA

AIA

-         102(a)€

-         102(b)€

-         102(e)€

-         PCToŠ่‚ฬ๊‡‚ฬ102(e) date@

102(a)(1)

102(a)(2)

What constitute prior art?

102(b)(1)(A), (B)

102(b)(2)(A), (B)

102(c)

 

exceptions

 

102(d)

geffective filing dateh

 

 

Day 2

(1/2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sep. 25, 2013

 

1.5 Hrs – 2 Hrs

 

 

ก    •ฤ‘“ม‹––@‘ๆ112๐

112๐‘ๆ1€\–พื‘‚ฬŠJŽฆE‹Lฺ—vŒ

Ø  Written Description – case laws: Gentry Gallery 1998/ Ariad v. Eli Lilly 2010

Ø  Enablement – case laws: United States v. Telectronics 1998/ CMFT v. Yieldup 2003

Ø  Best Mode – case laws: Taltech v. Esquel 2008

112๐‘ๆ2€\ƒNƒŒ[ƒ€‚ฬŠJŽฆE‹Lฺ—vŒ

Ø  MPEP 2173.01-MPEP2173. 05

112๐‘ๆ3A4A5€\ƒNƒŒ[ƒ€Œ`Žฎ‚ษ‘ฮ‚ท‚้—vŒ

112๐‘ๆ6€\Means + FunctionƒNƒŒ[ƒ€,

Ø  @In re Donaldson 1994; MPEP 2182; Chiuminata 1998

Ø  Claim scope of non-means and means terms

Ø   Doc. of equivalents v. Equivalents under 112(6)

 

ก    IDSi๎•๑ŠJŽฆ‹`–ฑj‚ษŠึ‚ต‚ฤ:

-          37 CFR 1.56

-          Timeline for IDS submission

-          What is ginformation material to patentabilityh under Rule 1.56?

-          What is gconcise explanation of relevanceh (of Non-English Language Information)?

-          Pre Therasense Decisions (Semiconductor-Energy Lab 2000, Dayco 2003,Star Scientific 2008)

-          Therasense Decision (Fed. Cir. 2011)

-          Post-Therasense Decisions (Powel 2011; Aventis 2012; 1st Media 2012)

-          Possible Review of Therasense by Sup Ct – SONY Ent. America v. 1st Media

 

กQ&As

 

 

 

Day 2

(2/2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sep. 24, 2013

 

1.5 Hrs – 2 Hrs

 

ก@•ฤ‘“ม‹––@‘ๆ103๐\Žฉ–พซ

 

-          History of obviousness – Hotchkiss v. Greenwood 1850; gFlash of Geniush in Cuno Engfg 1941; 1952 Act; Graham v. John Deere 1966; KSR v. Teleflex 2007

-          35 U.S.C 103 under Pre-AIA and 35 U.S.C. 103 under AIA

-          Factual inquiries to evaluate Obviousness under Graham v. John Deere 1966

-          KSR v. Teleflex (2007)

-          Examination Guideline in view of KSR – MPEP 2143

Ø  PTOfs Example based on Crocs v. ITC fed. Cir. 2010

-          How to rebut 103 Rejection in light of MPEP2141-2145?

Ø  No teachings/motivations/suggestions to combine the references (MPEP2143.01)

Ø  No reasonable expectation of success (MPEP2143.02);

Ø  Not all the limitations are taught or suggested (MPEP2043.03)

Ø  Teaching Away:

-- References teach away from the invention or references teach away from their combination; (MEP2145.X.D.2)

-- Proposed modification renders the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or change the principle of operation of a reference (MPEP2143.01/MPEP2145.X.D)

Ø  Secondary consideration under Graham v. John-Deere (long-felt need; commercial success; contrary to accepted wisdom; coping by others; c)

Ø  Summary:

 

ก    Recent developments in US Patent Laws/Case Laws/Others

Ø  Interpretation of Product by Process Claim – Abbot v. Sandoz (2009)

Ø  America Invents Act (2011) – post grant proceedings (PGR/IPR/Supp Exam)

Ø  Review of Cybor Decision;

Ø  International copyright exhaustion;

Ø  Is isolated gene patent eligible? Myriad decision 2013;

Ø  Patent right exhaustion – Monsanto v. Bowman 2013;

Ø  Others

 

ก    Q&As

 

 

 

 

 

 

@@@

@

Back to Seminars