On-Demand Web Programs
You choose - CLE when you want it,
where you want it.
KNOWLEDGE. INSIGHT. SOLUTIONS.
Prior Art & Obviousness 2008: The PTO and CAFC Perspective on Patent Law Sections 102 & 103
Released on: Jun. 30, 2008Running Time: 06:00:09.00
Overview
35 USC 102, Prior Art, continues to be re-understood and re-interpreted by the PTO and CAFC to account for the unforeseen in how the concept of “prior art” and circumstance collide in the 21st century. Prior art on the Web - here today, gone tomorrow - maybe; on sale, or “ready for patenting” in the age of biotech and nanotech. For every practitioner, it is a necessity to stay current on the touchstone of patentability: 35 USC 102.
And, let’s not overlook the most common reason any application is rejected or patent held invalid: 35 USC 103, Obviousness. The Pandora’s box of KSR (or “what in the world were they thinking when they wrote that opinion?”) will be explored from inside and outside the PTO. Can the genie be put back in the bottle?
The first two hours of the course are devoted to the PTO view of 102 and 103, i.e., what Examiners are using and relying on in examination and found in the current edition of the MPEP. The remainder of the program is devoted to recent case law decided by the CAFC as it relates to each segment of 102 and 103. The final hour is spent on 102(e).
Lecture Topics [Total time 6:00:09]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.
- Overview of Sections 102 and 103 [01:39:45]
John M. White - Section 102(a) - (d) [01:10:04]
Rebecca Goldman Rudich, Leonard R. Svensson - 102(f) and (g): Joint Ventures and Co-Development [01:03:26]
Margo A. Bagley - 35 USC 103 and the CAFC [00:53:50]
Rebecca Goldman Rudich - 102(e) and the 9 Most Common Timelines: Effects of Priority Under 119, 120, 121, 365 [01:13:04]
John M. White, Robert J. Spar
The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:
- 35 USC 102 And 103 Related MPEP Sections, 8th Edition, 6th Revision (With Appendix )
John M. White - Section 102 (a) And (b) And The CAFC 2007
Annemarie Hassett - Abandonment Under 35 U.S.C. §102(c)
Rebecca Goldman Rudich - Patentability Under 35 U.S.C. §102(d)
Rebecca Goldman Rudich - 35 USC 102(f) And 102(g) And The 103(c) Exceptions
Aaron B. Bernstein, Benjamin C. Hsing - Where Do We Go From Here?: Obviousness After KSR V. Telefex
Rebecca Goldman Rudich - Section 102(e) - Relevant MPEP Sections (With Appendix )
John M. White, Robert J. Spar - 35 U.S.C. 102(e), Powerpoint
Robert J. Spar - 102(f) And The 103(c) Exceptions
Aaron B. Bernstein - Index To Prior Art & Obviousness 2008: The PTO And CAFC Perspective On Patent Law Sections 102 & 103
Presentation Materials
- 35 USC 102
John M. White - Section 102 (a) and (b) and the CAFC 2008
Leonard Richard Svensson - Abandonment 35 USC §102(c) & Statutory Bar 35 USC §102(d)
Rebecca Goldman Rudich - Dealing with 35 USC §103 After KSR v. Teleflex
Rebecca Goldman Rudich - 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
Robert J. Spar - 102(f) and (g) and the 103(c) Exceptions
Margo A. Bagley
Faculty
Chairperson(s)
John M. White, Berenato & White, LLC; Director of Patent Professional Development, Practising Law InstituteSpeaker(s)
Margo A. Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawRebecca Goldman Rudich, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
Robert J. Spar, Director (Retired), Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office
Leonard Richard Svensson, Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
Program Attorney(s)
Seema Lal Meehan, Program Attorney, Practising Law InstituteCLE Credit
PLI makes every effort to accredit its CLE Now (On-Demand Web Programs) and Segments. Please check the CLE Calculator above for CLE information specific to your state.
CLE Now (On-Demand Web Programs) and Segments are approved in:
Alabama1, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho*, Illinois , Iowa2*, Kansas3, Kentucky*, Louisiana, Maine*, Mississippi, Missouri4, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire5, New Jersey, New Mexico6, New York7, North Carolina8, North Dakota, Ohio9, Oklahoma10, Oregon*, Pennsylvania11, Rhode Island12, South Carolina, Tennessee13, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin14 and Wyoming*.
Iowa, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin DO NOT approve Audio Only On-Demand Web Programs.
Minnesota approves live webcasts ONLY
*PLI will apply for credit upon request. Louisiana and New Hampshire: PLI will apply for credit upon request for audio-only on-demand web programs.
1Alabama: Approval of all web based programs is limited to a maximum of 6.0 credits.
2Iowa: The approval is for one year from recorded date.
3Kansas: An on-demand web program may be viewed individually if a qualified person is in attendance, personally or by telephone, to comment and answer questions. There is a 5.0 credit limit per year for this type of viewing.
4Missouri: On-demand web programs are restricted to six hours of self-study credit per year. Self-study may not be used to satisfy the ethics requirements. Self-study can not be used for carryover credit.
5New Hamphsire: The approval is for three years from recorded date.
6New Mexico: On-Demand web programs are restricted to 4.0 self-study credits per year.
7New York: Newly admitted attorneys may not take non-traditional course formats such as on-demand Web Programs or live Webcasts for CLE credit. Newly admitted attorneys not practicing law in the United States, however, may earn 12 transitional credits in non-traditional formats.
8North Carolina: A maximum of 4 credits per reporting period may be earned by participating in on-demand web programs.
9Ohio: To confirm that the web program has been approved, please refer to the list of Ohio’s Approved Self Study Activities at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us. Online programs are considered self-study. Ohio attorneys have a 6 credit self-study limit per compliance period. The Ohio CLE Board states that attorneys must have a 100% success rate in clicking on timestamps to receive ANY CLE credit for an online program.
10Oklahoma: Up to 3 credits may be earned each year through computer-based or technology-based legal education programs.
11Pennsylvania: PA attorneys may only receive a maximum of four (4) hours of distance learning credit per compliance period. All distance learning programs must be a minimum of 1 full hour.
12Rhode Island: Audio Only On-Demand Web Programs are not approved for credit. On-Demand Web Programs must have an audio and video component.
13Tennessee: The approval is for the calendar year in which the live program was presented.
14Wisconsin: Ethics credit is not allowed. The ethics portion of the program will be approved for general credit. There is a 10 credit limit for on-demand web programs during every 2-year reporting period.
Running time and CLE credit hours are not necessarily the same. Please be aware that many states do not permit credit for luncheon speakers.
If you have already received credit for attending some or the entire program, please be aware that state administrators do not permit you to accrue additional credit for repeat viewing even if an additional credit certificate is subsequently issued.
Note that some states limit the number of credit hours attorneys may claim for online CLE activities, and state rules vary with regard to whether online CLE activities qualify for participatory or self-study credits. For more information, call Customer Service (800) 260-4PLI (4754) or e-mail info@pli.edu.
Calculate Credits 
Credit Status: Approved
Transitional: No
Total Credits: 7.00
Professional Practice: 7.00
Continuing Legal Education since 1933.
