<html><body>In addition to prior comments, note that even an article that <b><i>does not</i></b> name the inventor as author can be removed as prior art lees than one year if "the disclosure was made ... by another who <i><b>obtained</b></i> the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor." 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A). <br><div class="reply-new-signature">This provides more options for making the statement per MPEP
2155.01, in particular if the inventor is<b><i> not</i></b> the first author in the article, by explaining that the role of the other authors may have been merely to <b><i>write</i></b> the article that describes subject matter "obtained" from the inventor.<br><br>Ron<br> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">-------------------------------------------------------</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Ron
D. Katznelson, Ph.D.</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">2020
Chairman, </span></i></b><i><b><a href="https://ieeeusa.org/volunteers/committees/ipc/">IEEE-USA IP Committee</a></b></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Office:</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> 760 753-0668<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Email:</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> rkatznelson@roadrunner.com </span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Selected
Works</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">:
</span></i><a href="http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">http://works.bepress.com/rkatznelson</span></i></a><i><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">SSRN:</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-fareast-font-family:
Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:
EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">:</span></i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-latin;color:#1F497D;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-latin;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA"><a href="http://ssrn.com/Authorid=706742">http://ssrn.com/Authorid=706742</a><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></span><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-latin;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA"> </span></i></div><p>-----------------------------------------</p>From: "Bryan McWhorter via Patentpractice" <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice."<br>Cc: "Bryan McWhorter"<br>Sent: Saturday February 17 2024 9:36:57AM<br>Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Expansive MPEP Interpretation of 35 USC 102(b)(1) - not consistent with the statute; MPEP 2153.01(a)<br><br>
<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\u202fAM
David Boundy via Patentpractice <<a>patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px .8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;">
<div>
<div>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><br></div>
<div>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><br></div>
<div>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>patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px .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">
<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;">
<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;width:125px;height:96px;">
<img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/MkzCObDW8vt80IL4vhFnE2q2Yk6E1XRrUnIh-iH5fpA3c50UEoqwye4MFFM_buPF7SARR8Afz5et5bNMpGCktg0yMNLoGYajdzI_R4YSwz1qxO__ZyuPGYb0xnJOd4dPxVaN-4aHWkCvVLyoU0Z49UY" style="margin-left:0px;" alt="MkzCObDW8vt80IL4vhFnE2q2Yk6E1XRrUnIh-iH5" width="96" height="95"></span></span></p>
</td>
<td style="vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;"><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(0,0,0);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(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(5,99,193);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline;">
<a>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/"><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/">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" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice"></a><a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice"></a><a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice"></a><a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice"></a><a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice"></a><a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice"></a><a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice"></a><a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice"></a></span></p>
<br></td>
</tr></tbody></table></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
--<br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br><a>Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br><a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com"></a><a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br></blockquote>
</div>
--<br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br><a>Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br><a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com"></a><a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br></blockquote>
</div>
</patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com></body></html>