Section 102, the MPEP and the CAFC

“Public knowledge” v. “public use”, “in this country”

• When is a patent a “patent”: (a) v. (b) v. (d)
• Availability on the “web”, on the shelf, and routine practices
• The “invention” & “experimental use”
• Date of “invention”
• Abandonment under (c) and (g)
• The foreign origin C.I.P. trap; “claimed or could have claimed”
• Derivation: “authorship” v. “inventorship”
• 102(g): Inter-parte and ex-parte and NAFTA/WTO

Section 103 and the PTO KSR Guidelines

• Back to the Future
• The CAFC and the BPAI find that most old precedent still applies!
• The PTO Guidelines and updates of their application in examining.

 The purchase price of this segment includes the following article from the Course Handbook available online:

• Section 102, the MPEP and the CAFC--When Is a "Patent" a "Patent," When Is a Clinical Trial an "Experimental Use," and Other Things That Keep You Awake at Night
  Darryl M. Woo
• Obviousness in the USPTO After KSR v. Teleflex
  Carl B. Wischhusen

Presentation Material

• Section 102, the MPEP and the CAFC
  Patrick R. Jewik
• Section 102, the MPEP and the CAFC
  Rebecca Goldman Rudich
• Section 102, the MPEP and the CAFC
  David D. Schumann