Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: HiTech RedNeck

No, that is not the issue. Under ‘first to invent’ the proof would have had to be provided that that was the case. In general terms, the same level of proof applies to show that the invention was not novel at the time of filing by a third party.

No one can obtain a valid patent under ‘first to file’ for something that was previously disclosed by public use or publication (other than in the 1 year grace period provided to the original inventor - 35 U.S.C. 102(b)).


18 posted on 02/25/2015 12:42:53 PM PST by Moltke ("The Press, Watson, is a most valuable institution if you only know how to use it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: Moltke
No one can obtain a valid patent under ‘first to file’ for something that was previously disclosed by public use or publication (other than in the 1 year grace period provided to the original inventor - 35 U.S.C. 102(b)).

Which is why intellectual property publication has become a big business.

24 posted on 02/25/2015 12:50:49 PM PST by backwoods-engineer (Blog: www.BackwoodsEngineer.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson