可以將英文說明書沒有翻譯到的部份再補到英文說明書之內嗎

18 posts / 0 new
最新回應
訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
MPEP 201.13.II.G. **>An

MPEP 201.13.II.G.
**>An applicant may incorporate by reference the foreign priority application by including, in the U.S. application-as-filed, an explicit statement that such specifically enumerated foreign priority application or applications are "hereby incorporated by reference." The statement must appear in the specification. See 37 CFR 1.57(b) and MPEP § 608.01(p). For U.S. applications filed prior to September 21, 2004, the incorporation by reference statement may appear in the transmittal letter or in the specification. The inclusion of this statement of incorporation by reference of the foreign priority application will permit an applicant to amend the U.S. application to include subject matter from the foreign priority application(s), without raising the issue of new matter. Thus, the incorporation by reference statement can be relied upon to permit the entering of a portion of the foreign priority application into the U.S. application when a portion of the foreign priority application has been inadvertently omitted from the U.S. application, or to permit the correction of translation error in the U.S. application where the foreign priority application is in a non-English language.

For U.S. applications filed on or after September 21, 2004, a claim under 37 CFR 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application that was present on the filing date of the U.S. application is considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed foreign priority application as to inadvertently omitted material, subject to the conditions and requirements of 37 CFR 1.57(a). The purpose of 37 CFR 1.57(a) is to provide a safeguard for applicants when all or a portion of the specification and/or drawing(s) is (are) inadvertently omitted from an application. For U.S. applications filed on or after September 21, 2004, applicants are encouraged to provide an explicit incorporation by reference statement to the prior-filed foreign priority application(s) for which priority is claimed under 37 CFR 1.55 if applicants do not wish the incorporation by reference to be limited to inadvertently omitted material pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(a). See 37 CFR 1.57(b) and MPEP § 608.01(p) for discussion regarding explicit incorporation by reference.<

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
訪客 wrote:Sure, find me a

訪客 wrote:Sure, find me a binding case that you can't do.

Please. It is common sense to "keycite" a case before using it. The case in your link clearly states that it is a "non-precedent" case. I don't understand how you missed that? Citing a case like this one is similar to citing State Street after Bilski...

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
訪客 wrote:訪客

訪客 wrote:訪客 wrote:這位朋友,您可能連RCE和CIP的主要功能都搞不懂,我覺得你應該沒有美國代理人資格。
不要在這裡陷害無辜的發明人,您的『專業』意見在美國會被申請人告業務過失。

講得太嚴重了
如果一開始主張本國優先文件及其對應美國申請案中並無載明"本案相關內容係有主張優先權故全文引用等"即並未一開始寫進至美專說明書內, 而倘若說明書技術記載內容有漏翻, 基本上是不能主張回補漏翻的內容, RCE也不行因為當時送件的版本就必需以漏翻的版本作為審理, 不得再增內容, 就漏翻部份若有技術特徵可供為保護條件當然可再考慮申請CIP並記載至權利要求中

有辦法,不需要CIP,如須幫忙,請留下電郵。

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
Are you saying that In re Oda

Are you saying that In re Oda is not binding? I am still waiting you to find me a case that has different ruling. BTW, really bad analogy of State Street/Bilski to this discussion. Maybe you can explain more on this for us too.

ides13
ides13 的照片
訪客 wrote:MPEP

訪客 wrote:MPEP 201.13.II.G.
For U.S. applications filed on or after September 21, 2004, a claim under 37 CFR 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application that was present on the filing date of the U.S. application is considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed foreign priority application as to inadvertently omitted material, subject to the conditions and requirements of 37 CFR 1.57(a). The purpose of 37 CFR 1.57(a) is to provide a safeguard for applicants when all or a portion of the specification and/or drawing(s) is (are) inadvertently omitted from an application. For U.S. applications filed on or after September 21, 2004, applicants are encouraged to provide an explicit incorporation by reference statement to the prior-filed foreign priority application(s) for which priority is claimed under 37 CFR 1.55 if applicants do not wish the incorporation by reference to be limited to inadvertently omitted material pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(a). See 37 CFR 1.57(b) and MPEP § 608.01(p) for discussion regarding explicit incorporation by reference.<
-------------------------

謝謝提供資訊。

以前的印象是外國語的說明書不適用「incorporation by reference」,
後來查了一下,請再留意「Essential material 」。

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0600_608_01_p.htm
(c) "Essential material" may be incorporated by reference, but only by way of an incorporation by reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication , which patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference. "Essential material" is material that is necessary to:

The incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(f).

ides13
ides13 的照片
訪客 wrote:Please. It is

訪客 wrote:Please. It is common sense to "keycite" a case before using it. The case in your link clearly states that it is a "non-precedent" case. I don't understand how you missed that? Citing a case like this one is similar to citing State Street after Bilski...

個人覺得訪客先進所提供的判決很受用。

請留意,連結中的判決是「Ex parte ARMELLE BONFILS and DANIEL PHILIBERT」,不是「In re Oda」。

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
訪客 wrote:Are you saying that

訪客 wrote:Are you saying that In re Oda is not binding? I am still waiting you to find me a case that has different ruling. BTW, really bad analogy of State Street/Bilski to this discussion. Maybe you can explain more on this for us too.

The case in your link is non-precedent, not In re Oda.

頁面

Log in or register to post comments