In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102b) (1)) (B), the nature of disclosure by the common inventor or other object disclosed directly or indirectly by the common inventor (. B, for example, patenting, publication, public use, sales activity) is identical to disclosure of the interim disclosure of the additional time. This is the fourth article in my first series of Friday. Every Friday in August, I publish an article that takes a close look at one of the state-of-the-art exceptions to the first file version of 35 USC No. 102, which will apply to certain patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013. The manner in which the purpose is referred to in a statement or affidavit referred to in 37 CFR 1.130 (b) is not determinative. Just like the rule of state of the art of 35 U.S. C S.
102a (a) (2) (2) includes any disclosure making a claimed invention publicly available, any form of disclosure may be established in a sworn statement or a statement referred to in 37 CFR 1.130 (b). In other words, where a sworn statement or statement referred to in 37 CFR 1.130 (b) is used to disqualify an intermediate disclosure as a state of the art on the basis of prior public disclosure by a common inventor or inventor, it is not necessary that the object was disclosed in the same way or with the same words. In other words, it is not necessary that the disclosure of the inventor or a common inventor be a literal revelation or ipsissimis verbis of a revelation between the two, in order to apply the exception based on an earlier public disclosure of the object by the common inventor or inventor. 18I hope that the possibility that the secret state of the art does not exclude future patenting is a premium over confidentiality agreements and trade secrets. If a company learns that a competitor is approaching the commercial secrecy of reverse engineering, the company can then apply for patent protection for the invention. Biotech companies should take this into account when assessing the risks and expenses associated with maintaining trade secrets. In addition, the use of a claimed invention as a commercial use is considered a commercial use for non-profit organizations, provided that defence is invoked only for ongoing and non-commercial use.34 Given that biotechnology research and development is important in non-profit academic institutions, these exceptions could have a significant influence on patent litigation in this area. 37 CFR 1.130 (a) provides that the applicant or patent holder, in the event of a resensitization of a claim or patent, may file a declaration or declaration of disqualification as a state of the art by demonstrating that the disclosure was made by the common inventor or that the disclosed object was obtained directly or indirectly by the inventor or inventor.