Title 35 of the United States Code is the title of the United States Code of patent law. Part of Title 35 governs all aspects of patent law in the United States. There are currently 37 chapters, which include 376 parts (149 of which are used), in Title 35.
These forms of Federal-recognized intellectual property are spread throughout the United States Code. Copyright is covered by Title 17. Trademarks and unfair competition laws are defined in Chapter 22 of Title 15 (15 USCÃ, Ã, Ã, 1051-15 USCÃ, Ã,§ 1141n [The Lanham Act ]) . Trade Secret Law, another form of intellectual property, is defined in 18 U.S.C.Ã,§Ã, 1839.
Title 35 has four sections:
- Part I - United States Patent and Trademark Office
- Section II - Patentation of Invention and Patent Granting
- Part III - Patent and Patent Protection
- Part IV - Patent Cooperation Agreement
Video Title 35 of the United States Code
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Parts 1 through 42 establish the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO is responsible for granting and issuing patents and registering trademarks.
Maps Title 35 of the United States Code
Patentability
The invention must meet certain requirements to qualify for a patent. The present invention shall take into account the patentable material (section 101). The invention shall be new and the application for patent on the invention shall be timely (section 102). The present invention should be unclear (section 103). Finally, the invention should be adequately documented (section 112).
Section 101
35 U.S.C.Ã, Ã,Ã, 101 35 U.S.C. 101 The invention may be patented.
- Anyone who discovers or discovers new, useful, process, compositions, or compositions, or any new and useful remedies thereof, may obtain patents therein, subject to these conditions and conditions title.
This may seem broad, but certain subject matter is not eligible, so-called 101 judicial exemptions. The United States Supreme Court recently interpreted 35 USC 101 in a Bilski decision v. Kappos. Below is a quote from the Manual of Patent Inspection Procedure (MPEP) (Taken from 8th Ed. Revision 6, September 2007):
- 706.03 (a) Disclaimer Below 35 A.S.C. 101 [R-5]:
- I. SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
- The patent is not granted for all new and useful inventions and discoveries. The subject of the invention or invention shall be within the limits defined by U.S.C. 101, which allows patents to be granted only to "new processes and machinery, useful, manufacture, or composition of the material, or new and useful fixes thereof."
- The term "process" as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100, means the process, art or method, and includes the new use of the process, machinery, manufacture, composition of matter, or known matter.
- View MPEP Ã,§ 2105 for ** & gt; patent rights of living material & lt; and MPEP Ã,§ 2106 ** & gt; for guidance relating to the general feasibility of the subject. & lt;
- The decision has set a legal class limit. Examples of material that can not be patented under the following laws:
- A. Printed Matter
- For example, the setting of printed material, even if it appears to be "manufacturing", is rejected because it is not in the law class. See In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 164 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1969); Ex parte Gwinn, 112 USPQ 439 (Bd App 1955); and In re Jones, 373 F.2d 1007, 153 USPQ 77 (CCPA 1967).
- B. Natural Articles Happen
- Similarly, what happens in nature, which is substantially unchanged, is not "manufacturing." Shrimp with head and digestive tract removed is an example. Ex parte Grayson, 51 USPQ 413 (App 1941).
- C. Scientific Principles
- A scientific principle, separated from a real structure, can be rejected as not in the law classes. O "Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62 (1854).
- This subject is subsequently limited by the Atomic Energy Act described in MPEP Ã, § 706,03 (b).
Section 102
35 U.S.C.Ã,§Ã, 102, entitled "Conditions for Patentability", describes some conditions when patents should not be given to the inventor based on the concept of novelty. These conditions generally relate to when a discovery is generally known. Each sub-section of section 102 describes the different types of prior art that may be used as evidence that an invention is common. This includes the invention described in the application or other patent publications. It also includes inventions that have been sold for more than one year before a patent application is filed. Netscape Commc'ns Corp v. Konrad is an example of a case that focuses on public usage and sales criteria in this section.
This section of the AS code is affected by the America Invents Act (AIA). The most important part of section 102 now reads as follows:
(a) NOVELTY; ART PRIOR.-- Someone is entitled to a patent except -
- (1) invention claimed patentable, described in printed publications, or in general use, sold or publicly available prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
- (2) the claimed invention is described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for a patent issued or otherwise considered to be issued under section 122 (b), where the patent or applications, as may be the case, mention the names of other inventors and are effectively filed before the effective acceptance date of the claimed invention.
Full text can be found in USPTO.
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102: Conditions for patenting; novelty and loss of patents.
Sections 102 (a), (b) and (e) are the most important considerations when determining patentable subjects during patent prosecution.
Section 103
35 U.S.C.Ã,§Ã, described the so-called patent condition is unclear. This provides that patented invention should not be clear to "people of ordinary skill in this field" (PHOSITA) recalling prior art appropriate. The most important judicial decision in interpreting 35 USC 103 is Graham v. John Deere Co. And recently KSR v. Teleflex where the United States Supreme Court reaffirms Graham v. Deere and away from dependence on the TSM test.
Section 103, post-AIA, reads as follows:
Patents for claimed invention can not be obtained, even though the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is such that the claimed invention as a whole is clear before the filing date effectiveness of the invention claimed to a person possessing ordinary skill in the field to which he or she claims the object of the invention. Patentability should not be negated by means of invention-making.
The most important part of pre-AIA section 103 is 103 (a):
35 U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patenting; unclear subject matter. Patent can not be obtained even though the present invention is not expressly disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the difference between subjects is sought for patenting and prior art in such a way that the subject matter is the whole will be clear at the time the invention is made for someone with ordinary skill in art that says related material. Patentability should not be negated by means of invention making.
The full text of this section of the law can be found in the USPTO.
Section 112
35 US notes the form and content of the specification and the form and content of the patent application claim. The first paragraph introduces 3 legal concepts, requirements written description , requirements empowerment , and best mode requirements . The second paragraph limits the claim ability to be too open or unclear.
Section 11AAAAAAAA reads as follows:
35 U.S.C. 112 Description.
- (a) GENERALLY.-- The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and on the manner and process of its manufacture and use, in full, clear, concise, and precise. a term to allow any person skilled in the art relating thereto, or who is virtually connected with it, to create and use the same, and shall specify the best mode intended by the inventor or inventor together in the course of the present invention..
- (c) FORM. - Claims can be written independently or, if the nature of the case is acknowledged, in a dependent or multi-dependent form.
- (d) REFERENCES IN THE FORM OF DEPENDENT.-- Subject to sub-section (e), claims in a dependent form must contain references to previously established claims and then set further limits on the subject claimed. Claims in a dependent form shall be construed to be incorporated by reference to all limitations of the claims to which they are referred. (e) REFERENCES IN MULTIPLE DEPENDEN FORMs.-- Claims in a multi-dependent form shall contain references, in alternatives only, to more than one previously defined claim and then to specify further limits on the subject matter being claimed. Multiple multiple claims will not serve as the basis for other multi-dependent claims. Claims that are doubly dependent will be interpreted to be combined with reference to all specific claim restrictions in relation to that under consideration.
- (f) ELEMENTS IN CLAIM FOR COMBINATION.-- The element in the claim for the combination can be expressed as a means or step to perform a defined function without the recital of the structure, material, or action in its support, and the claim must be interpreted for includes the appropriate structure, material or action described in the specification and its equivalent.
The pre-AIA version of section 112 [1] is not much different from this.
External links
Works in conjunction with the United States Code/Title 35 on Wikisource
- US. Title Code 35, through the United States Government Printing Office
- US. Title Code 35, via Cornell University
- US. Title Code 35, section 102, via BitLaw
- The title 35 is given in the paragraph
- USPTO Patent Inspection Procedure Manual, including explanations and interpretations of all US Codes Title Title 35
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments