E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« Compromise Resolves AvastinĀ® Dispute | Main | USPTO News: USPTO to Halt Weekly Paper Publication of USPTO Practice and Procedure Notices »

December 27, 2007

Comments

Even ignoring 103 issues, do you think that the USPTO has realized that "prior art" is defined differently in the U.S. and in Japan, so what is correctly patentable in one jurisdiction should not necessarily be patentable in the other? (From previous initiatives, I would doubt they have, or if they have they choose to ignore the difference. Anyway, such a clear error on the USPTO's part could likely destroy the presumption of validity.)

[The 103 issues are apparently even thornier, since in Japan obviousness-type rejections cannot use prior art which is only available under their equivalent of 102(e).]

NIPRA: You raise an interesting issue that could present problems in the quest for "trilateral harmonization" if not properly addressed. From what I've read of the Patent Prosecution Highway program, it is not merely a "rubber stamp" to patentability, but helps to identify issues of patentability that were relevant to the initial examining office. If differences in what can be considered prior art in one of the countries is a factor during examination, hopefully the examiner will identify and address that issue before allowing the patent. As you also mention, there are a number of other issues concerning differences between obviousness and inventive step in the US and EP/JP, respectively. I imagine that those differences would be held to the status quo, and that the PPH program will not sway one office to another office's threshold requirement for obviousness/inventive step. That being said, I could be completely wrong. Thanks for reading and thanks for the comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30