<div dir="ltr">Echoing prior comments, take a look at MPEP 2155.01: <div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Tahoma,verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:11.2px">Where the authorship of the prior art disclosure includes the inventor or a joint inventor named in the application, an unequivocal statement from the inventor or a joint inventor that the inventor or joint inventor (or some combination of named inventors) invented the subject matter of the disclosure, accompanied by a reasonable explanation of the presence of additional authors, may be acceptable in the absence of evidence to the contrary. See<span class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><i style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Tahoma,verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:11.2px">In re DeBaun,</i><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Tahoma,verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:11.2px">687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982).<span class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 8:26 AM David Boundy via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Before you go this route, let me suggest another that may well be both cheaper and lower risk. Pre-AIA, at least for applications, overlapping inventors are "another" to the new inventors. (In re Lamb if I recall). Unless there's a pretty clear statement in legislative history of intent to change this, you're going to have steep climb. But pre-AIA law was that authorship on a paper did not equate to inventorship on a contemporaneous patent application. If that memory of mine is correct, you might have an easier slope to get a declaration that the paper evaluated under standards of *inventorship* has same inventors as the patent application. With a little Westlaw time, I think youll find a case from the 1970's to support this.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If you have to go your proposed route on the statutory issue, spend some quality time in the legislative history. I don't recall seeing anything about this specific issue, though there was a general concern (especially among the big pharma folks who were the big advocates of this part of the AIA) for reducing self-collisions as much as possible. If you don't find anything direct in Congressional Record, it might be helpful to look at Joe Matal's article (in Federal Circuit Bar Assn J if I recall?)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I wouldnt start this path unless you are fully prepared to go all the way to Federal Circuit. Some of the APJs will take the view that the Director's interpretation carries great weight. Some won't. You should thoroughly argue the administrative law implications of guidance (google "PTAB is Not an Article III Court Part 3 Precedential Opinions" -- youll get an article that gives you a big head start). The Supreme Court in a couple months will give a decision in Loper Bright that will clarify the role of guidance in statutory interpretation. (google "Loper Bright PTAAARMIGAN" for my prediction of where Loper Bright will come out.)</div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Feb 17, 2024, 9:55 AM Andrew Berks via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">
<div>I got an obviousness rejection based in part on a paper published 6
months before the patent application filing date. The paper had 8
authors, 2 of whom were inventors on the patent. </div><div>I asserted
that the paper was not prior art based on 35 USC 102(b)(1) - a paper
published less than one year before the filing date made by the inventor
or joint inventor is an exception to 102(a)(1). </div><div>The examiner
refused to discount the paper b/c of the other authors. This is part of
MPEP 2153.01(a), explaining that a disclosure is not prior art if it
(1) was made one year or less before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention; (2) names the inventor or a joint inventor as an
author or an inventor; and (3) does not name additional persons as
authors on a printed publication or joint inventors on a patent. </div><div>My
view is that the MPEP takes an expansive reading of the statute. The
statute is silent as to the case, where as here, there are additional
authors on a paper that names the inventors as authors and was published
less than one year before the priority date. The MPEP reads in a
requirement that is not part of the statute. Moreover, the MPEP cites no
precedent for this added requirement.</div><div>I'm going to make this argument on appeal to the PTAB, which is the next step in this application. <br></div><div><br></div>
<br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><span><div dir="ltr" style="margin-left:0pt" align="left"><table style="border:medium;border-collapse:collapse"><colgroup><col width="136"><col width="488"></colgroup><tbody><tr style="height:0pt"><td style="vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:10pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="border:medium;display:inline-block;overflow:hidden;width:125px;height:96px"><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/MkzCObDW8vt80IL4vhFnE2q2Yk6E1XRrUnIh-iH5fpA3c50UEoqwye4MFFM_buPF7SARR8Afz5et5bNMpGCktg0yMNLoGYajdzI_R4YSwz1qxO__ZyuPGYb0xnJOd4dPxVaN-4aHWkCvVLyoU0Z49UY" width="96" height="95" style="margin-left: 0px;"></span></span></p></td><td style="vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;vertical-align:baseline">Andrew Berks, Ph.D., J.D.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,121,172);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline"> </span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;vertical-align:baseline">| Partner</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.390909;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;vertical-align:baseline">Patent Attorney and IP Licensing</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.390909;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline">FRESH</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(68,68,68);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline"> </span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(36,36,36);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline">IP PLC</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(68,68,68);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.390909;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(68,68,68);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline">28 Liberty St 6th Fl</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.390909;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline">New York NY 10005 (US)</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.390909;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline">Main office: 11710 Plaza America Drive, Suite 2000, Reston, VA 20190 USA</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline"><br></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;vertical-align:baseline">e:</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline"> </span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(5,99,193);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline"><a href="mailto:andrew@freship.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">andrew@freship.com</a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(68,68,68);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline"> | </span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;vertical-align:baseline">w: </span><a href="http://www.freship.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(17,85,204);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline">www.freship.com</span></a> <a href="https://berksiplaw.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">berksiplaw.com</a></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.390909;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(36,36,36);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;vertical-align:baseline">Direct</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(36,36,36);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline">: +1-845-558-7245<a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245" rel="noopener noreferrer" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245" rel="noopener noreferrer" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245" rel="noopener noreferrer" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245" rel="noopener noreferrer" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245" rel="noopener noreferrer" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245" rel="noopener noreferrer" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245" rel="noopener noreferrer" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245" rel="noopener noreferrer" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice" target="_blank"></a></span></p><br></td></tr></tbody></table></div></span></div></div></div></div>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div>