US專利延續案中的子案, 每個 claim 的domestic benefit 要怎麼判斷

18 posts / 0 new
最新回應
ides13
ides13 的照片
訪客 wrote:簡單說原因就是因為claim

訪客 wrote:
簡單說原因就是因為claim 3可以被當成 continuation 而非 CIP

-----------------------------------------
最大的問題在於claim 3和claim 1不同,claim 3沒有被continuation。

當然,也許應該不會發生這種事,所以才會被訪客兄認為,都有「continuation」吧。

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
com'on 所以想請問在一篇甲專利的front

com'on
所以想請問在一篇甲專利的front page中的 Related U.S. Application Data, 有提到This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application "A" filed on "X", which is a continuation of U.S. application "B" filed on "Y", now U.S. Pat. No. xxxxxxx, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application "C" filed on "Z", now U.S. Pat. No. xxxxxxx.

甲專利(claim 3) is CIP of A,
A is CONTINUATION of B, and
B is CIP of C.

What do you mean by "claim 3 沒有被continuation"...

ides13
ides13 的照片
因為Froggy做了一個假設 「甲專利的claim

因為Froggy做了一個假設

「甲專利的claim 3可以在A, C之filing document都找到,但是B找不到,那claim 3的invention date至少就是A的filing date。」

假設B案已把 claim 3 的內容拿掉了。

當然,在現實上應該不會發生。

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
CIP 常發生 B無法把A已經揭部分示拿掉 112

CIP 常發生
B無法把A已經揭部分示拿掉 112 的基本的觀念

Froggy (未確認)
訪客 的照片
應該教導的觀念

謝謝ides13的解釋。
也先說聲抱歉,沒有依照開版者的CIP與CP關係,隨便的就假設不一樣的揭露關係。

先確定申請案的先後延續順序與揭露關係假設。
由早到晚,C(有support of claim 3)-B(無support)-A(有support)-甲(claim 3)。
這個亂來的假設比較像是甲 is a Con. or CIP of A, which is a CIP of B, which a CIP of C.

訪客兄所謂
"B無法把A已經揭部分示拿掉 112 的基本的觀念"
這是絕對對的!但也是不重要,因為早的申請案當然不能也不必要討論拿掉後的申請案之揭露部分。

我猜訪客兄的意思是
"B 無法把 C 已經揭部分示拿掉 112 的基本的觀念"
這就不一定了。因為,CIP確實可以拿掉母案的內容。

我比較認同的觀念是:預防我自己亂來之假設發生,CIP案,都應該謹守Spec.只能增加不能減少的基本撰寫觀念。

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
考古題

每個美國申請案,如果有提優先權的話,只會主張"這個美國申請案"對哪些母案提優先權,不會主張"這個美國申請案的哪個claim"對哪些母案提優先權。也就是說,優先權的觀念是,一個申請案中每個發明,都主張享受所提優先權之前案的申請日。

United States Patent and Trademark Office
Registration Examination for Patent Attorneys and Agents
April 17, 2002 Afternoon Session
24. In 1995 Patent Agent filed a U.S. patent application containing five claims
(Application 1). All five claims are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. § 112 by the
disclosure of Application 1. In 2000, Patent Agent filed a U.S. patent application
(Application 2) that was a continuation- in-part of Application 1. Application 2 adds new
subject matter to the disclosure of Application 1, and ten additional claims. Of the fifteen
claims in Application 2, claims 1-5 are exactly the same as Application 1, claims 6-10 are
fully supported under 35 U.S.C. § 112 by the disclosure of Application 1, and claims 11-
15 are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. § 112 only by the newly added subject matter of
Application 2. The effective filing date for claims in Application 2 is:
(A) 1-15 is 2000.
(B) 1-15 is 1995.
(C) 1-10 is 1995.
(D) 11-15 is 2000.
(E) (C) and (D).

24. ANSWER: (E) is the most correct answer. MPEP § 706.02 page 700-20 (8th ed.), under the
heading “DETERMINING THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE APPLICATION” states
“[t]he effective filing date of a U.S. application may be determined as follows: … (B) If the
application is a continuation-in-part of an earlier U.S. application, any claims in the new
application not supported by the specification and claims of the parent application have an
effective filing date equal to the filing date of the new application. Any claims which are fully
supported under 35 U.S.C. § 112 by the earlier parent application have the effective filing date of
that earlier parent application.” Accordingly, the effective filing date of claims 1-10 is 1995 and
the effective filing date of claims 11-15 is 2000. Answers (A) and (B) are incorrect because they
do not account for the two different effective filing dates. Answers (C) and (D) are both correct,
therefore answer (E) which includes both (C) and (D) is the most correct answer.

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
CIP確實可以拿掉母案的內容

HOW?

頁面

Log in or register to post comments