Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Neelima Sharma (student)     14 July 2013

Please help me....

. While traveling through Germany (a WTO member country) in December 2010, Thomas (a Canadian citizen) conceived of binoculars for use in bird watching. The binoculars included a pattern recognition device that recognized birds and would display pertinent information on a display. Upon Thomas’ return to Canada (a NAFTA country) in January 2011, he enlisted his brothers Joseph and Roland to help him market the product under the tradename “Birdoculars.” On February 1, 2011, without Thomas’ knowledge or permission, Joseph anonymously published a promotional article written by Thomas and fully disclosing how the Birdoculars were made and used. The promotional article was published in the Saskatoon Times, a regional Canadian magazine that is also widely distributed in the United States.

Thomas first reduced the Birdoculars to practice on March 17, 2011 in Canada.A United States patent application properly naming Thomas as the sole inventor was filed on September  17,2011.The application was rejected by the USPTO  as being anticipated by the Saskatoon Times article.

A) On what statutory ground/provision could the USPTO examiner have handed out the rejection?Why?

B) How would Thomas rebut the USPTO rejection,to secure patent protection for his claims..?



Learning

 1 Replies

Banker Harpreetsingh (Patent Agent)     15 July 2013

I dont know abt USPTO but as per Indian Patent Act 1970

 

u/s29. Anticipation by previous publication.—(1) An invention claimed in a complete 

specification shall not be deemed to have been anticipated by reason only that the 

invention was published in a specification filed in pursuance of an application for a patent 

made in India and dated before the 1st day of January, 1912.

(2) Subject as hereinafter provided, an invention claimed in a complete

specification shall not be deemed to have been anticipated by reason only that the 

invention was published before the priority date of the relevant claim of the specification, 

if the patentee or the applicant for the patent proves—

(a) that the matter published was obtained from him, or (where he is not himself the 

true and first inventor) from any person from whom he derives title, and was 

published without his consent or the consent of any such person; and

(b) where the patentee or the applicant for the patent or any person from whom he 

derives title learned of the publication before the date of the application for the 

patent, or, in the case of a convention application, before the date of the 

application for protection in a convention country, that the application or the 

application in the convention country, as the case may be, was made as soon as 

reasonably practicable thereafter:

Provided that this sub-section shall not apply if the invention was before the priority 

date of the claim commercially worked in India, otherwise than for the purpose of 

reasonable trial, either by the patentee or the applicant for the patent or any person from 

whom he derives title or by any other person with the consent of the patentee or the 

applicant for the patent or any person from whom he derives title

 

 

The patentee has to challange the ruling before the Controller that the publication was without his knowledge and permission and that the application was filled within a reasonable time (say within 1 yr) of the publication.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register