※ 引述《abcalmighty ( )》之铭言： : 请问各位先进 : 请参阅下列时间轴 : 本案 : 引证案 优先权 本案 : 申请日 日期 申请日 : 　　———|————————|——|———→　时间 : 2010 2011 2011 : 02/06 01/11 03/30 : 引证案为发明人自己发表的paper : 虽然本案主张的优先权日还未超过一年，但是申请日已经超过了... : 因此审委就用102(b)来核驳本案的新颖性 : 这样的话，还有其他办法可以remove掉引证案吗？ : 还是已经没救了...~"~ 根据原po与V大的推文讨论，我引述MPEP中几个案例来说明本案审查委员 对102(b)的解读错误 102(b)中的"printed publication"的定义 根据下述案例 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. 再根据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). 既然连"寄给出版商"都不算public，还在审查最好是见鬼的公开了 请你们的美国代理人(事务所)引用这个案例去干翻审查委员吧 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 210.59.205.23