Lapas attēli

by pereche za 2.2 is:erest, the corporation, to patect the tecnicos esccrezed and perfected by its employees, ad ty rensereg seca corporate inventions against the standari of acud have been obvious to one of orcrasezate the corporation at the tize the sectica *as sade vi the corporation.

Al trat is zeeded to ezaed the pateat system to ensbrace corpora 22:21 aspicacions is a ore sentence statory a ceainet. ii: gse two-procg test in such an eigacded system, a price is eation made outside the corporadica ad loss to the art, but nown to an employee of 'se scrporacice, wocic be available as prior art against the cercorze irrectica cated in the corporation's paient applicado. But, a prior investice made inside the corporadca adec 1:3.5e at would not be available.

The task of determine whether the invention of ancthers are able a price at can be bou complex and incted in either the present patent system or in an expanded petect system. It is by no means an insurmountabie task, borsver, when a proaced in the manner develcped beras

SELECTED 33_OCRAPHY Berisien. Du finder and Good Faith-Does Rale 36 Com goice Succrt p223112gation of Fraud 1.901 Cur.

penie e corects a Patent Lav, Pc. Las to D. Chist. 72:13 Varia Beccer 16).*2Comments Cerver.cas cn the Origin of

Section 3. Socccccsness-re lsrate Cocdition of

Paisatai130I. Witherspccc ed. Bureau Natl. aff. 1980). Packers P-4.2'der Secon3?-Tite Veed for Pu67. Neco Cuscess-Delicmate Coadition of

Patentai: 123.cxenc:P-cr1? 's** KTV" erre C:27?–4 Suggested

Iriarczane Lerocch, SS Patest Law Azacal 6? (Matthew

Bencer 39 Jcréa. Section 1223 Prior irrerice zs Section C3 Prior Art:

Impact ca Corcorze R2322.01.181.221. Ori Socy 33:19761. Kiran, 35 15.0.493 Eso sinz Pro Art. 81. Pat.

Co Soc'y S5 La Fuze, cán irequizzie Coniuct in Selecting and Citing Pror ÅT in Pian: Socknen, is Patens Law ingual 37 Varbe Bescer

R. Milgrim, Trade Secrets (Matthew Bender 1979).
Oisher and Steinhauser. The Role of the Prior Inventor Under

Section 102(g), 45 J. Pat. Off. Soc'y 595 (1963).
Patent Law Perspectives
Pitlick, A Proposed Compromise to the Prior Art" Controversy

Surrounding In re Hellsund and In re Bass, 56 J. Pat. Off. Soc y

699 (1974). Rich, Congressional Intent-Or, Who Wrote the Patent Act of

1952, Nonobviousness -- The Ultimate Condition of Patentabil

ity 1:1. Rich, Laying the Ghost of the "Invention" Requirement, Non

obviousness-The Ultimate Condition of Patentability 1:501. Rich, Why and How Section 103 Came To Be, Nonobviousness

The Ultimate Condition of Patentability 1:201. Rivise and Caesar, Interference Law and Practice (Michie 1940). F. Robbins, The Defense of Prior Invention-Patent Infringement

Litigation (Prac. L. Inst. 1977). Rosenstock, Prior art Under 35 U.S.C. Section 103 Includes Prior

Invention-in re Bass and In re Hellsund, 56 J. Pat. Off. Soc'y

263 (1974). Skillman, 1977 Rules on Duty of Disclosure, 1979 Patent Law

Annual 29 (Matthew Bender 1979) Witherspoon, Current Problems and Considerations Re Section

103 "Prior Art" by Reason of 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), and (8), [1980] Current Developments in Patent Law 95 (Prac. L. Inst. 1980).

EDITOR'S NOTE: And see Chisum, Prior Invention and Putentability. 63 J. Pat. Off. Soc'y 397 (1981).

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

For reasons which will become clearer as this scricy of articles progresses, the complex nature of prior art can best be interpreted and understood in terms of the multitudinous case law involving it. Having said that, it is still appropriate to commence within the present statutory framework for the patent law which is the Patent Act of 1952 as subsequently amended. Title 35 of the United States Code is the codification of this Act. The only refcrcnce to prior art in the entire Act appears at 35 U.S.C. 103.' According to the Senate Report accompanying the Act: (Section 103) refers to the difference between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art, meaning what was known before as described In Section 102." Emphasis supplied.) The chief draftsman of the Act made the same point: The antecedent of the words, "the prior art"... lies in the phraxe "disclosed or described as set forth in Section 102' and hence these words refer to the material specified in Secilon 102 as the basis for comparison.'

Other than this, the legislative history is adent as to any mcuning to be ascribed in prior urt. Initially, there was very little comment, judicial or otherwise, on this point. This is somewhat remarkable in that there are several subsections of 35 U.S.C. 102 which a perunal suggests should have no relutionship to prior art us that term is most commonly thought of. For example, it is difficult to perceive how Section 102(c) concerning abandonment or Section 102(1)

Recently, wimirici jual in City l'OLXian RUU theme Inul when he xtulud: 'Prior al't Is e dithcult concepl to define. For instance, a literal de Marlon or it is impos slblo," (Emphesis supplied.) General Molors Corp. v. Toyota Motor Co., Lid., 467 F. Supp. 1142, 209 U.S.P.Q. 158. 174(8.D. Ohio 1979).

5 103. Condtions for petoniabilly; non-obvious subject muller

A putune May not be obtained Thule the invention is not identically disclosed or described as at forth in section 107 of the imle, 18 the different between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art an such Ibut the subject mwiler as a whole would have boon obvious the time the invention was made to A person having ordinary R&MI la lho art to which aald subject matter perlaina. Patenlability shall not he nepotlved by the manner in which the invention was mode.

6 Senate Roport No. 1979, R2d Cong., 2d Sout., U..5. Code Cono de Admin, News at 2399.

7 P.J. Federico, "Commentary on the Now Paient Act," 33 U.S.C.A.P.IN 20.

8 sec text accompanying role 24, yupru.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
« iepriekšējāTurpināt »