Tag Archives: Printed Publication

OVERVIEW OF USPTO PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REEXAMINATION OF A U.S. PATENT

Patent, Reexamination, , ,

Effect of a Pending Reexamination — Each claim of a patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. 282 and may be enforced notwithstanding the presence of a pending reexamination proceeding. See Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1428, 7 USPQ2d 1152, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 1988); See also Viskase Corp. v. Am. Nat’l Can Co., 261 F.3d 1316, 1328, 59 USPQ2d 1823, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 857, 225 USPQ 1, 4 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(en banc). Although litigation may move forward in parallel with a reexamination proceeding, at the district court’s discretion, the results of the reexamination proceeding may have an effect on the litigation. See e.g., In re Translogic, 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Under 35 U.S.C. 307, a patent is not revised by any amendment or cancellation of a claim made during a reexamination proceeding until a reexamination certificate is issued.

Ex Parte Reexamination – A proceeding in which any person may request reexamination of a U.S. Patent based on one or more prior patents or printed publications. A requester who is not the patent owner (i.e., a “third party requester”) has only limited participation rights in the proceeding. [MPEP 2209]

Inter Partes Reexamination – A proceeding in which any person who is not the patent owner and is not otherwise estopped may request reexamination of a U.S. Patent issued from an original application filed on or after November 29, 1999 based on one or more prior patents or printed publications. Both patent owner and third party requester have participation rights throughout the proceeding, including appeal rights. [MPEP 2609]

Reexamination Granted – An Order Granting Reexamination is not a determination of claim patentability. An Order that one or more claims of a U.S. Patent will be reexamined because the request has established the existence of at least one SNQ based upon prior patents and/or printed publications. [MPEP 2247.01]

In ex parte reexamination, the Order, whether granting or denying reexamination, must be mailed within three months of the filing date of the request for reexamination. [MPEP 2241]

In inter partes reexamination, the Order must be mailed not later than three months after the request is filed.   [MPEP 2641]

Reexamination Denied – An Order Denying Reexamination is also not a determination of claim patentability. An order denying reexamination of any of the claims of a U.S. Patent because the Office has determined that no SNQ has been established in the request for reexamination. [MPEP 2247.01]

Substantial New Question of Patentability (SNQ) – A request for reexamination must establish the existence of at least one new technological teaching affecting any claim of the patent for which reexamination has been requested that was not considered by the Office in a prior Office proceeding involving the patent. The SNQ is established based on prior patents and/or printed publications. [MPEP 2242]

Notice of Filing of Request for Reexamination – Notice that a request for reexamination has been filed and accorded a filing date is published in the Official Gazette. [MPEP 2215]

Rejection (Non-Final) – The initial Office action on patentability.

In ex parte reexamination, the initial action is not mailed with the Order Granting Reexamination; the patent owner may file optional comments, to which the third party requester may respond, prior to the initial Office action. Therefore the Office must await the expiration of the periods for such comments and responses thereto before mailing the initial action. [MPEP 2262]

In inter partes reexamination, the initial action may optionally be mailed together with the Order Granting Reexamination, but even if not, no party comments are permitted prior the mailing of the initial action. Patent owner files a response to a non-final action that includes argument and/or an evidentiary showing and/or amendments, and the response will be entered as a matter of right. Third party requester may thereafter respond with written comments directed to the Office action and to the patent owner’s response. [MPEP 2260]

Rejection (Final) – A second or subsequent action on patentability in an ex parte reexamination may be made “final.” While responsive arguments may be considered, entry of an amendment or consideration of additional evidence is not a matter of right in a final rejection. Patent owner may appeal to the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). [MPEP 2271]

Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) – The second or subsequent action on patentability in an inter partes reexamination proceeding. Patent owner may respond with argument and/or an evidentiary showing and/or amendments. Alternatively, patent owner may choose not to respond. If patent owner does file a response,
then third party requester may thereafter file written comments directed only to the patent owner’s submission. Entry of the patent owner response is not a matter of right. Neither party may appeal at this point in the proceeding. [MPEP 2671.02]

Right of Appeal Notice (RAN) – After (1) considering any patent owner response to an ACP, and any third party requester written comments thereto, or (2) the expiration of the time for patent owner to file a response and no response has been filed, the examiner will either re-open prosecution if necessary, or issue a RAN. The RAN sets time periods in which the parties may appeal to the BPAI. The RAN also closes prosecution. Any amendment filed after a RAN will not be entered. [2673.02]

It is possible for the Office to issue a RAN after a patent owner response to the initial Office action on patentability if both parties stipulate that the issues are appropriate for a final rejection and or a final patentability determination.

Appeal to the BPAI – Ex Parte Reexamination – A notice of appeal is a proper response to a final rejection in an ex parte reexamination. Only patent owner may appeal. The appeal process is similar to that in a non-provisional patent application. [MPEP 2273]

Appeal to the BPAI – Inter Partes Reexamination – Either party may file a notice of appeal as a proper response to a RAN in an inter partes reexamination. If some clams are rejected and some claims are allowed or confirmed as patentable, both parties may appeal those determinations, file appeal briefs, respondent’s briefs directed to the other party’s appeal brief, and, after the examiner files the examiner’s answer to those briefs, file a rebuttal brief directed to the examiner’s answer. [MPEP 2674]

Subsequent (Court) Appeals – Ex Parte Reexamination – If the request for reexamination was filed prior to November 29, 1999, patent owner may appeal the decision of the BPAI to either the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, or to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. If the request for reexamination was filed on or after November 29, 1999, patent owner may appeal only to the Federal Circuit. [MPEP 2279]

Subsequent (Court) Appeals – Inter Partes Reexamination – Either party who was a party to an appeal to the BPAI and is dissatisfied with the result may appeal only to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. [MPEP 2683]

Concurrent Reexamination and Litigation – If there is concurrent litigation and reexamination on a patent, and the request for reexamination was filed as a result of court order, or the litigation has been stayed for the purpose of reexamination, the Office will expedite the proceedings by taking the case up for action at the earliest possible time, setting shorter response times, and permitting extensions of time only upon a strong showing of sufficient cause. [MPEP 2286]

Effect of Concluded Litigation on Reexamination

A court decision holding that a patent claim is valid will not preclude the Office from continuing to reexamine such claim in an ex parte reexamination proceeding, even if the court decision is final and non-appealable. The Office applies the “broadest reasonable interpretation” for claim language in a reexamination proceeding, because claims may be amended during the proceeding. Courts apply a less liberal standard of claim interpretation, and therefore, the Office may conclude that a claim held valid in a court proceeding is unpatentable or invalid in an ex parte reexamination proceeding. [MPEP 2286]

A final, non-appealable court decision holding that a patent claim is invalid will preclude the Office from ordering any reexamination proceeding for such claim, or, will result in termination of any reexamination proceeding previously ordered as to such claim. [MPEP 2286]

It should be noted that with respect to inter partes reexamination, a final, nonappealable holding in litigation that a patent claim is valid may operate to estop a party from even requesting inter partes reexamination of that claim, or from maintaining a previously ordered inter partes reexamination of that claim. Estoppel may also operate to preclude a party who has obtained an Order Granting Inter Partes Reexamination of a patent claim from asserting invalidity of that claim in litigation under Section 1338 of Title 28 on grounds that such party raised, or could have raised, during that inter partes reexamination, if that claim has been finally determined to be patentable in the inter partes reexamination proceeding. [MPEP 2686.04(V)]

Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate (NIRC) – Reexamination proceedings do not become “abandoned.” Rather, an NIRC is mailed to inform the parties that a reexamination proceeding has been terminated, whether by the failure of a party to timely file a required response, or by the natural resolution of all outstanding issues of claim patentability. The NIRC lists the status of all claims that were subject to reexamination, including any patent claims that have been canceled and any claims added during the proceeding that were not part of the patent that were reexamined and determined to be patentable. The NIRC also indicates which patent claims, if any, were not reexamined. An NIRC may include an examiner’s amendment, and must include reasons for confirmation of any patent claims that were determined to be patentable without amendment, and reasons for allowance of any amended patent claims or any newly added claims. [MPEP 2287]

Reexamination Certificate – A reexamination proceeding is concluded by publication of a reexamination certificate. The certificate amends the text of the patent that was reexamined, in a manner analogous to a certificate of correction. The Reexamination Certificate will contain the text of all changes to the text of the patent that was the subject of the reexamination proceeding. [MPEP 2288 and 2290]

Notice to the Public of Reexamination Certificate – Publication of a reexamination certificate is announced in the Official Gazette. [MPEP 2691]

In re Nature’s Remedies: Foreign Regulatory Submission Invalidates Patent Under 102(b)

Anticipation, Patent, Patent Cases 2009, ,

In re Natures Remediesssp_temp_capture.jpg (Fed. Cir. 2009) (nonprecedential)

In October of 2005, a third party (Jemo-Pharm) submitted a request for ex parte re-examination of Natures Remedies patented claim covering an herbal composition of guarana, damiana, and yerbe-mate claimed to cause weight loss. More than one year before Remedies’ filing date, an anticipating composition had been submitted to a Danish regulatory organization as part of a request for approval for clinical testing. (The decision is unclear, but implies that the submission was done by Remedies).

A Danish official provided testimony that the submission was a public record and was open for inspection since its date of submission. Remedies’ expert, however, argued that a Danish trade-secrecy law would have prevented such inspection. The BPAI accepted the open-access line of argument and found the submission invalidating prior art under 35 USC 102(b). The patentee appealed – arguing that the official submission was not sufficiently publicly accessible to be considered 102(b) prior art.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed – finding that the regulatory submission was publicly available more than one year before Remedies filed its application. The court began by recognizing that the official’s testimony created a prima facie case that the submission was publicly accessible – shifting the burden to the patentee. Of course, BPAI factual findings such as this will be affirmed with a finding of “substantial evidence.”

Because [the Danish Official’s] declaration established a prima facie case of public availability, the onus was on Remedies to demonstrate that the [regulatory submission] was not accessible to interested members of the public. Remedies, however, failed to carry its burden.

Under the Danish trade-secrecy law, the regulatory submissions are kept secret when they are of “material importance” to a company’s “economy.” It appears that Remedies could have proven its case but failed to provide evidence to the Board.

Attorney argument, however, cannot take the place of record evidence. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Here, the evidence of record does not establish that Remedies intended to keep the formulation of the Medi-Tab capsule confidential until after the study had been completed and a patent application had been filed.

Rejection affirmed

Notes:

  • 102(b) looks at prior art that was “described in a printed publication” more than one year prior to the date of application for the US patent. Implicit within ‘publication’ is a notion that the material is publicly accessible. Notably, however, there is generally no need to prove that the material was actually accessed. Thus, in this case, there is no discussion of whether the regulatory submission was ever seen by anyone.
  • Read the case
  • Reexam No. 90/007,785 (look it up in PAIR).
  • In some ways, this case is simply an extension of the Pivonka v. Axelrod case where the Federal Circuit held that the applicant has waived arguments by failing to present them at the Board of Patent Appeals.

Post-Reexamination Litigation Estoppel

Patent,

Acco Brands, Inc. v. PC Guardian Anti-Theft Products, Inc., 3-04-cv-03526 (N.D.Cal., December 4, 2008).  

Infringers have long been reticent about filing for inter partes reexamination. One problem is the estoppel provision – 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) – that limits the claims that the third-party requester can later make in court. In particular, Section 315(c) is written to estop the third party requester from later asserting an invalidity defense in litigation if the third-party requester “raised or could have raised” the ground during the reexamination. (The estoppel provision only applies once the PTO determines that the challenged claim is valid).

35 U.S.C. §315(c): A third-party [inter partes] requester … is estopped from asserting at a later time, in any civil action … the invalidity of any claim finally determined to be valid and patentable on any ground which the third-party requester raised or could have raised during the inter partes reexamination proceedings.

In this case, the PC Guardian had requested an inter partes reexamination based on several prior art references. However, upon consideration, the PTO confirmed that the claims were patentable.

In the ensuing infringement litigation, PC Guardian made an end-run around the estoppel argument. For its non-infringement contention, PC Guardian presented three 1980’s Macintosh portable computers as prior art. According to the defendant’s argument, the physical computers when seen in combination with the references considered by the PTO rendered ACCO’s patent obvious.

Because reexaminations are restricted to considering only patents and printed publications, the district court agreed that Section 315 does not estop PC Guardian from asserting the combinations during litigation.

File Attachment: PCGuardian.pdf (84 KB)

In re Swanson: CAFC Allows Reexamination Based on Reference Previously Considered by PTO and Courts

Patent, Patent Cases 2008, Reexamination, , ,

In re Swanson (Fed. Cir. 2008)

Back in 1984, the patent examiner rejected Swanson’s claim based on U.S. Patent No. 4,094,647 (“Deutsch”). The claims were then amended and the patent allowed. Later, in an infringement action involving the patent, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment that “Deutsch did not anticipate the asserted claims.” Abbott v. Syntron, 334 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Surmodics is the patent owner, and the patent is licensed to Abbott.

After losing at the CAFC, Syntron filed for ex parte reexamination of the patent – asserting again that the claims were anticipated by Deutsch. As per usual, the PTO agreed to reexamine the patent – based on a “substantial new question of patentability.” 35 USC §303. On appeal, Swanson argues that the Deutsch reference was considered in both the initial examination and the litigation – and thus cannot serve as the “new” basis for reexamination.

Third-party filed reexaminations provide a check on PTO power, but the SNQ requirement is designed to protect patentees from harassment.

This ‘substantial new question’ requirement would protect patentees from having to respond to, or participate in unjustified reexaminations. Further, it would act to bar reconsideration of any argument already decided by the Office, whether during the original examination or an earlier reexamination. House Report 96-1307, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980).

In its 1997 Portola Packaging case, the CAFC gave teeth to the SNQ requirement – finding that a new question could not be presented by “prior art previously considered by the PTO in relation to the same or broader claims.” Reacting to that decision, in 2002 Congress amended Section 303 and to ensure that a new question may be raised by prior art that was previously considered by the examiner:

35 USC §303 “The existence of a substantial new question of patentability is not precluded by the fact that a patent or printed publication was previously cited by or to the Office or considered by the Office.”

Pointedly, the House Report accompanying the 2002 legislation found that “the Federal Circuit incorrectly interpreted Congress’ original intent.” According to the House Report, “the appropriate test to determine whether a ‘substantial new question of patentability’ exists should not merely look at the number of references or whether they were previously considered or cited but their combination in the appropriate context of a new light as it bears on the question of the validity of the patent.”

SNQ = Reference Never Considered by the PTO for the Particular Purpose: Based on the statutory change, the appellate panel found that a substantial new question is simply one that has never been considered by the PTO. Here, the record shows that the original examiner relied upon Deutsch only as a secondary reference in an obviousness rejection of a broader claim.

“In light of the extremely limited purpose for which the examiner considered Deutsch in the initial examination, the Board is correct that the issue of whether Deutsch anticipates the method disclosed in claims 22, 23, and 25 was a substantial new question of patentability, never before addressed by the PTO”

SNQ Relation to Court Proceedings: In court, the parties had battled out the exact anticipation argument presented in the reexamination. On appeal, the CAFC panel found that “the determination of a substantial new question is unaffected by these court decisions.” According to the court this makes sense because “the two forums [Courts and the PTO] take different approaches in determining validity and on the same evidence could quite correctly come to different conclusions” based on the burden of proof. Quoting Ethicon (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Affirmed

Notes:

  • Judges Gajarsa (Author), Lourie, & Bryson.
  • This opinion gives further strength to ex parte reexamination requests.
  • The CAFC has consistently required that a patent’s presumption of validity be negated by “clear and convincing evidence.” Here, the court made a minor slip by calling the standard ‘statutory.’

“In civil litigation, a challenger who attacks the validity of patent claims must overcome the presumption of validity with clear and convincing evidence that the patent is invalid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. If this statutory burden is not met, “[c]ourts do not find patents ‘valid,’ only that the patent challenger did not carry the ‘burden of establishing invalidity in the particular case before the court.'” Ethicon, 849 F.2d at n.3 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original).”

Thanks to Paul Morgan for noting this issue.

Moving to First-to-File

Patent

The potential move to a first-to-file system has received little attention — it is certainly not the most controversial in the current package of patent reforms.  Of course, this says more about the Patent Reform proposal than about the potential impact of the first-to-file change. Although not receiving the most press, in the end, this change would have the most impact on the reform package.

The entirely re-written Section 102 would create a bar to patentability if “the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public” prior to the filing of the patent application (the ‘effective date’).  [Use Thomas to obtain the most recent version.] The rule would also encompass 102(e) prior art, so long as the prior art filing was prior to the effective date.  A one-year grace period would remain in place, but only for public disclosures released by the inventors, the assignee, or a signatory to a joint research agreement.  

The first-to-file rule can be thought of as a “race to the courthouse” recording statute.  In the world of first-to-file, it does not matter who invented first, only who is the first to file the patent application.  A perhaps more salient way to think of the shift is that it primarily operates by shifting the ‘critical date’ of 102(b) to the filing date, thus creating a whole new set of prior art that can be asserted against an applicant.

Apart from whether a first-to-file system is a better system, the legislation itself has problems. Most critical is the inclusion of the ill defined clause “otherwise available to the public.” This clause could easily swallow the entire list of prior art types, except perhaps “on sale.” (patented, printed publication, and public use are all available to the public). We’re left wondering what additional activities will be encompassed by subsequent CAFC decisions. 

This amendment would greatly increase the value of creating a joint-research-agreement any time any research or information is shared between parties. In addition, some companies will increase their provisional application filing as a way to ensure that the invention is on file at the PTO ASAP.  Of course, this change will have negative little impact on foreign companies seeking US patents or US companies already filing patents internationally because these rules closely mirror the requirements already in place around the world.

The benefits of first to file:

  1. Encourages inventors to quickly file for patent rights;
  2. We avoid the potential for fraud in swearing-behind references;
  3. Interferences are gone (but derivation litigation is in);
  4. A patent would be more difficult to obtain – especially when the invention is easily conceived by another; and
  5. Global harmony .

Paper Posted to Non-Indexed FTP Site Not 102(b) Prior Art

BPAI, Patent,

Internet Gateway TechnologySRI Int’l v. Internet Security Systems (Fed. Cir. 2008).

In Delaware federal court, SRI accused ISS of infringing four  patents relating live traffic analysis of computer network gateways.  On summary judgment, Judge Sue Robinson held the patents invalid — anticipated by SRI’s own prior work.

In a split panel, the Federal Circuit vacated — finding a lack of evidence that SRI’s prior publication was sufficiently publicly available more than one year before the patent applications were filed.

Event History:

  • Aug 1, 1997 — “Live Traffic” paper e-mailed to a conference chair and posted the paper on an accessible SRI FTP site as a “backup” for the conference chair. Paper remained on the FTP site for seven days.
  • Nov 10, 1997 — SRI displays the paper on its website.
  • Nov 9, 1998 — SRI files its patent application.

Although 35 USC 102(b) contains no explicitly requirement of ‘public accessiblity’ of a prior printed publication, such accessibility has long been required and fills-out the definition of the term ‘publication.’

In the 2006 Bruckelmyer case, the CAFC noted that public accessibility could be satisfied if a person who is “interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter” could locate the publication using “reasonable diligence.”  Otherwise hidden publications can often be considered accessible if they are somehow indexed or cataloged by subject.

In Bruckelmyer, the court found that an unpublished Canadian patent document was sufficiently accessible because it was related to an on-point issued patent and could be retrieved at the Canadian patent office.

In this case, the court found insufficient evidence to rule on summary judgment. The FTP server was publicly accessible. However, it was uncataloged and would have been difficult to search. Additionally, only one non-SRI person (the conference chair) was shown to have knowledge of the paper on the FTP site.

Thus, the court vacated summary judgment for further development of the facts.

Judge Moore dissented — arguing forcefully that the facts showed public accessibility of the FTP site. (For instance, the FTP site had been used previously and was linked-to from over 70 Google Group posts). Procedurally, Judge Moore also faulted SRI for failing to present any facts on its side (as opposed to attorney argument). Under Rule 56, an opposing party “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”

When is an Electronic Document a Printed Publication for Prior Art Purposes?

Patent

ScreenShot001Wynn W. Coggins — the PTO’s Chief Examiner of eCommerce patent applications — recently published a useful article about how her art unit deals with electronic prior art. The following are some highlights.

Internal documents:

Internal documents intended to be confidential are not “printed publications” and are unavailable for use as prior art. This is regardless of how many copies are distributed. Additionally, note that “[w]hile distribution to government agencies and personnel alone may not constitute publication…distribution to commercial companies without restriction on use clearly does.” Garrett v. US., 422 F.2d 874 (Ct. Cl. 1970).

Electronic Publications:

An electronic publication, including an on-line database or Internet publication, is considered to be a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b) provided the publication was accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates. Thus, “whether information is printed, handwritten, or on microfilm or magnetic disk or tape, etc., the individual who wishes to characterize the information as a printed publication…should produce sufficient evidence of its dissemination or that it has been otherwise available and accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates…” Wyer, 655 F.2d 227, Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com, 73 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (W.D. Wash. 1999).

Web Pages Must Be Static:

Prior art disclosures on the Internet or in an on-line database are considered to be publicly available as of the date the item was publicly posted. This is provided that the item is dated and not temporal, and can be indexed for subsequent retrieval. An example of a temporal item is a web broadcast that cannot be saved, retrieved or printed, e.g., a live simulcast feed that is not archived, and a “streaming” audio or video that “flashes” across the screen.

Read the Article. (Via Michael White)

Noonan’s Corner Office: IDS Rule Changes

Patent,

By Kevin Noonan.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, having encountered open hostility to some recent proposals, is again trying to address the issues of patent pendency and quality by proposing new rules regarding Information Disclosure Statements.

An Information Disclosure Statement is a document through which an applicant can fulfill (in part) the duty of disclosure under Rule 56 of Patent Office regulations. Using an IDS, an applicant can identify and submit copies of prior art references, including U.S. patents, U.S. and foreign patent applications (including international applications) and scientific references, as well as other documents such as product manuals, advertisements, and any other printed publication. Although there are no separate requirements that an IDS must be filed, the Office does impose a fee for filing an IDS after the first action on the merits, and will not consider an IDS filed after a final rejection or notice of allowance without good cause. There is currently no limit on the number of documents that can be submitted with an IDS.

The new proposals do away with the fees associated with “late” filing of an IDS. However, the proposal will permit an applicant to submit no more than 20 references without explanation. If more than 20 documents are submitted, the applicant will be subject to “increasingly more stringent” requirements to explain the significance of the documents. These requirements will also apply to applicants who submit “very long” documents (a term that is not very precisely defined).

The latest proposals seek once again to shift the burden for examination from the Examiner to the applicant, and to require increased assertions on the record regarding patentability over the prior art. It appears that the Office has no confidence that the examining corps, properly supported in both numbers and resources, can perform its tasks properly and efficiently. In response, the Office continues to produce proposals that are inconsistent with the reality that the inequitable conduct “defense” will certainly inhibit if not preclude applicants’ counsel from providing precisely the sort of information the proposal is designed to seek.

Note: Kevin Noonan is a partner at MBHB LLP in Chicago.

Links. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/presentation/focuspp.html

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/71fr38808.pdf

Dennis Crouch

crouch@mbhb.com Sent from my mobile phone (please excuse the thumbspeak and typos).

Poster Presentation at Conferences Constitutes 102(b) Printed Publication

Patent, Patent Cases 2004,

In re Klopfenstein and Brent (Fed. Cir. 2004) (three day poster presentation at academic conference without any paper distribution or indexing was a printed publication under 102(b)).

More than one year prior to filing their application, the inventors of a new method of peparing foods using extruded soy fiber presented a poster presentation at two academic conferences (for a total of less than 3 days).  No copies of the presentation were distributed.  The Patent Examine rejected the claims as anticipated by the prior publication.  The applicants did not dispute that the presentation fully disclosed the invention.  Rather applicants argued that the presentation was not a prior art publication under 35 USC 102(b).

The only question in this appeal is whether the Liu reference constitutes a “printed publication” for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).  As there are no factual disputes between the parties in this appeal, the legal issue of whether the Liu reference is a “printed publication” will be reviewed de novo.

The Appellate Panel affirmed the rejection holding that  distribution or indexing is not required of printed publications. 

The reference itself was shown … to members of the public having ordinary skill … Those members of the public were not precluded from taking notes or even photographs of the reference.  And the reference itself was presented in such a way that copying of the information it contained would have been a relatively simple undertaking for those to whom it was exposed-particularly given the amount of time they had to copy the information and the lack of any restrictions on their copying of the information.  For these reasons, we conclude that the Liu reference was made sufficiently publicly accessible to count as a “printed publication” under § 102(b).