Antedating in patent law
1, 2015) (Before Newman, Clevenger, and Dyk, J.) (Opinion for the court, Newman, J.). Steed, Bhattacharya, and Seshadrijois (collectively, “Applicants”) filed a patent application with claims directed to a web-based debt collection system. 2004/0019560 (“’560 reference”), alone or in combination with other references.The Board determined that Applicants had waived its defense of prior reduction to practice, and was limited to prior conception with diligence, because the reduction to practice issue was not raised in Applicants’ briefs. With respect to the Board’s ruling that Applicants had waived its “reduction to practice” argument, the Federal Circuit disagreed.The original question had to do the with the case that prior art is cited by the examiner and the date of the reference is before the filing date but after the inventor actually invented and reduced the invention to practice.A way the inventor can try to deal with that is by submitting a section 131 affidavit.
While there is no such thing as a granted international patent, the PCT process is a way to simultaneously file an application in some 140 jurisdictions with one set of paperwork in one fell swoop.
US National Stage claiming priority to the PCT Application filed on Mar. Reference was cited in the course of prosecution of the US National Stage entry. There is an MPEP page that covers the differences in how these types of utility applications are treated.
I do not see any distinction between antedating a reference on a "regular" 35 USC 111 national application and a 35 USC 371 national stage application.
For those applications it no longer matters when you invented it.
Each week, we succinctly summarize the preceding week of Federal Circuit precedential patent opinions. Applicants appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”).