Disclosure Requirements 112....................................................................................................................

2
Enablement............................................................................................................................................2
Best Mode...............................................................................................................................................2
Written Description..............................................................................................................................2
Definiteness: Particularly Pointing Out and Distinctly Claiming..................................................2
Loss of Right 102....................................................................................................................................3
Timely Application 102 (b)...............................................................................................................3
Public Use 102 (b)...............................................................................................................................3
On Sale Bar 102 (b).............................................................................................................................3
Third Party Activity..............................................................................................................................3
Foreign Activity 102 (d).....................................................................................................................3
Novelty 102 (a) 102 (e) 102 (g).........................................................................................................4
Proving Date of Invention....................................................................................................................4
Identity of Invention and Anticipatory Enablement.......................................................................4
Known and Used 102 (a)...................................................................................................................4
Described in a Printed Publication.....................................................................................................4
Patented Before......................................................................................................................................5
Secret Prior Art 102 (e)......................................................................................................................5
Secret Prior Art 102 (g)......................................................................................................................5
Derivation 102 (f) 102 (g)................................................................................................................5
Non-Obviousness 103............................................................................................................................6
Scope of the Prior Art...............................................................................................................................6
Analogous and Non-Analogous Prior Art........................................................................................6
The Content of the Prior Art...............................................................................................................7
Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art...........................................................................................7
Secondary Considerations.......................................................................................................................8
Utility 101................................................................................................................................................8
Statutory Subject Matter 101.................................................................................................................8
Infringement..............................................................................................................................................9
Interpretative Aids..............................................................................................................................10
Doctrine of Equivalents (DOE).........................................................................................................10
Prosecution History Estoppel...........................................................................................................11

Patent Law
Disclosure Requirements 112
Enablement
The inventor is required to set forth in patent specification sufficient information to
enable a person skilled in the relevant art to make and use the claimed invention without
undue experimentation.

Enablement must be commensurate with the claim. OReilly v. Morse

Later art cannot make an earlier incomplete disclosure sufficient. In re Glass

Later art cannot be used to invalidate an application. In re Hogan

Best Mode
The specification should set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of
carrying out his invention. Must be sufficient to enable PHOSITA.

The best mode is that known by the inventor not by his employer or assignee
Glaxo Inc v. Novapharm Ltd.

Routine production details and commercial considerations do not constitute a best

mode of practicing the claimed invention. Great Northern Corp. v. Henry Molded
Products, Inc.

Written Description
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention.

Drawings may be sufficient to provide the written description of the invention.

Vas-Cath v. Mahurkar

The disclosures need only reasonably convey to persons skilled in the art that the
inventor had possession of the subject matter in question. Ipsis verbis disclosure is
not necessary. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin

Definiteness: Particularly Pointing Out and Distinctly Claiming

The patent must particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.

Loss of Right 102

Timely Application 102 (b)
The invention cannot be patented or described in a printed publication in this or a
foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to
the date of the application for patent.

Historical precedent: Pennock v. Dialogue

Public Use 102 (b)

The invention cannot be in public use in this country more than one year prior to the
date of the application for patent.

Public does not mean visible. Egbert v. Lippmann

Public use includes secret use. Metallizing Engineering v. Kenyon Bearing and
Auto Parts

Experimental use is an exception and does not start the clock running:

Experimental use can be in public, if necessary. City of Elizabeth v. American

Nicholson Pavement Company

Failure to maintain control over prototypes renders the use public. Lough v.
Brunswick Corporation

On Sale Bar 102 (b)

The invention cannot be on sale in this country more than one year prior to the date of
the application for patent.

The purchase of the conception of an invention, not yet reduced to practice, can
trigger the on-sale bar. Pfaff v. Wells Electronics

Third Party Activity

Piratical third party use can constitute public use. Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet
Co.

Use by colleagues without control can constitute public use. Baxter International v.
COBE Laboratories.

Foreign Activity 102 (d)

A foreign patent applicant cannot obtain a US patent if (1) the foreign application is filed
more than one year before the US application, & (2) the foreign patent issues before the
US patent is filed.

The issuing of the patent and the claims involved are what controls. In re
Kathawala
3

Novelty 102 (a) 102 (e) 102 (g)

Claimed subject matter must be new at the time of invention. Invalidating prior art must
contain a disclosure that sets forth each and every element of the claimed invention and
enables a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention.

Proving Date of Invention

1) the first to reduce to practice can show that he was the first to conceive and
exercised reasonable diligence in reduction his invention to practice;
2) reduction to practice is shown if the inventor can prove that the invention works
for its intended purpose and there is a contemporaneous appreciation of such;
3) conception is proved through the presentation of corroborated evidence that the
inventor formed in his mind a definite and permanent idea of the complete and
operative invention, as it is thereafter applied in practice. Burroughs Welcome v.
Barr Labs

where a party is first to conceive but second to reduce to practice, that party must
demonstrate reasonable diligence toward reduction to practice from a date just prior
to the other partys conception to its reduction to practice. Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard Inc.

Identity of Invention and Anticipatory Enablement

For a reference to anticipate, in addition to being prior, it must also have an adequate
disclosure as measured under a standard similar to the enablement requirement.

A prior art reference must be considered together with the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art. A reference need not explain every detail since it
is speaking to those skilled in the art. In re Paulsen

Known and Used 102 (a)

The use must be full disclosure (RTP) in a manner that is accessible to the public in the
US for it to trigger this provision of the statute.

Secret use and abandonment by a third party is not prior art. Gayler v. Wilder
An unsuccessful experiment which is later abandoned does not negative novelty.
Rosaire v. Baroid Sales Division

Described in a Printed Publication

To be treated as a printed publication, a document must be both physically and logically
available to a hypothetical member of the interested public. Must enable.

The document may be located abroad, provided it is publically accessible. In re

Hall
The document must be cataloged or indexed in a meaningful way. In re Cronyn

Patented Before
The legal rights involved in the patent are what matters, not the content.

A fully disclosing foreign patent-like application will invalidate. In re Carlson

Secret Prior Art 102 (e)

The invention must not be described in
1. an previous application for a patent filed in the US
2. a previous patent granted in the US
Prior art under 102 (e) can defeat novelty even though the prior art is essentially
inaccessible to the public, including the inventor.

A United States patent disclosing an invention date before the date of the filing of
the patent application suffices, even though it is not published. Alexander Milburn
Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co.

Secret Prior Art 102 (g)

The invention must not be made by another inventor and not abandoned, suppressed,
or concealed. Prior art under 102 (g) can defeat novelty even though it is virtually
inaccessible to the public, including the inventor. There must be reasonable diligence.
The level of publicity required under this provision is different from that required
under other subsections of 102.

Corroboration is required only when the testifying inventor is asserting a claim of

derivation or priority of his or her invention and is a named party, an employee of or
assignor to a named party, or otherwise is in a position where he or she stands to
directly and substantially gain by his or her invention being found to have priority
over the patent claims at issue. Thomson, S.A. v. Quixote Corp.

Derivation 102 (f) 102 (g)

A patent application must be filed in the name of the true inventor. The inventor must
not have derived the claimed invention from another source.

To show derivation, the party asserting invalidity must prove both prior
conception of the invention by another and communication of that conception to the
patentee. The communication should enable PHOSITA. Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter
Healthcare Corp.

Priority is awarded to inventor who first reduced the invention to practice, except
1. an inventor who was first to conceive the invention but the last to reduce it to
practice will denied priority if he did not exercise reasonable diligence in reducing
to practice from a time just prior to when the first person who reduced to practice
conceived the invention;

2. the second inventor will be awarded priority if the first inventor abandoned,
suppressed, or concealed the invention (after reducing it to practice).

Conception requires a detailed understanding of the item to be patented and may

require a reduction to practice, for example, chemical formula/DNA. Fiers v. Revel

Conception is complete only when the idea is so clearly defined in the inventors
mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice,
without extensive research or experimentation. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr
Laboratories, Inc.

Reduction to practice does not need to be in exactly the intended environment,

but the testing conditions must be sufficiently similar. The invention does not need
to be a commercially satisfactory stage of development. DSL Dynamic Sciences
Limited v. Union Switch & Signal, Inc.

Suppression and concealment can be either deliberate or inferred and is a

question of law. It can be negated by renewed activity. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin

Non-Obviousness 103
Even if an invention is novel, it must also be significantly different from (not better than)
the prior art.
Graham framework:
Ultimate question of patent validity one of law but 103 condition lends itself to
several basic factual inquiries:

scope and content of prior art are to be determined

differences between prior art and claims at issue to be ascertained

level of ordinary skill in pertinent art resolved

Obviousness or non-obviousness
considerations might be utilized.

of

subject

matter

determined.

Secondary

Scope of the Prior Art

Analogous and Non-Analogous Prior Art
Art is analogous if it is the same field as the invention or in some other field but still
germane to the problem facing the inventor before the invention.

Prior art is analogous if it is in the same field of endeavor or if it is still reasonably

pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Clay,
In re Paulsen

2 ways to assess if art is pertinent:

product-function approach: art of the industry for which the innovation is

designed

problem-solving approach: art of dealing with the kind of problem which

the innovation is designed to solve (Federal Circuit)

Under 102 (e), a pending patent application is prior art for the purposes of
determining obviousness. Hazeltine Research v. Brenner

Under 102 (g), the prior invention of another who has not abandoned,
suppressed or concealed it is prior art. In re Bass

Under 102 (f), subject matter derived from another party may be combined with
other prior art to render another invention unpatentable for obviousness. OddzOn
Products v. Just Toys

The Content of the Prior Art

References cannot be combined under 102 but can be under 103. They must suggest to
a person of ordinary skill in the art that he should make the invention and that, once
made, he would have a reasonable expectation of success. There must be a reason to
combine.

To prevent hindsight invalidation of claims, law requires some teaching,

suggestion or reason to combine cited references, proved by clear and
overwhelming evidence. McGinley v. Franklin Sports

Such a suggestion may come from the references themselves or from the
knowledge of those skilled in the art that certain references, or disclosures in the
references, are known to be of special interest or importance in the particular field.
Pro-Mold and Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics

Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art

Hypothetical person who has ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention
pertains. Subjective motivations of inventors is not material.
Environmental Designs v. Union Oil - factors in determining ordinary skill:
1. educational level of inventor
2. type of problems encountered in the art
3. prior art solutions to these problems
4. rapidity with which innovations are made
5. sophistication of technology
6. educational level of workers in the field
May not always be present. One or more may predominate.

The level of skill is ordinary. Breadth is perfect. Complete knowledge of all pertinent art
presumed.
Workshop analogy (Judge Rich): PHOSITA working in his shop with the prior art
references hanging on the walls around him (Winslow tableau). Creates hindsight
problem. Wording revised somewhat in In re Antle: no full knowledge of non-analogous
art, but ability to select and utilize from it.

Secondary Considerations
Relevant to, and sometimes determinative of, a 103 obviousness determination:

commercial success Pentec v. Graphic Corp.

long-felt need

failure of others

licensing/acquiescence

More susceptible to judicial treatment than highly technical facts. Sometimes elevated to
fourth Graham factor by Federal Circuit.

Utility 101
Claimed invention must be useful to be patentable.

A patent is not a hunting licence. Brenner v. Manson

One effective use is enough. For drugs, FDA approval not needed. In re Brana

Statutory Subject Matter 101

Invention must fall into one of four categories in 101:

processes

machines

manufactures

compositions of matter

Focus not on which category claim is directed to but on essential characteristics of the
subject matter, in particular, its practical utility.

DNA patentable as invention is patentable as non-naturally occurring

manufacture or composition of matter. Diamond v. Chakrabatry
Abstract computer algorithms not patentable. Gottschalk v. Benson
The use of an computer algorithm with other steps in a process is patentable.
Diamond v. Diehr

An algorithm applied in a useful way is patentable even if it is not part of a

physical process. State Street Bank and Trust v. Signature Financial Group
This also applies to a process claim. AT & T Corp v. Excel Communications

Infringement
154 (a) (1): patentee has right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or
selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the
United States.
Applications after 29 November 2000 similar provisional rights beginning on date
application is published and ending on date patent issues - 154 (d) (A) (i)

third party must have actual notice

remedy: reasonable royalty

271 (a): making, using, offering to sell, or selling invention infringes patent
Therefore, 5 basic rights of exclusion:
1. making
2. using
3. selling
4. offering for sale
5. importing
Claims should be clear and should control the determination of infringement: claim
construction/claim interpretation (first step in an infringement or validity analysis)
Enforcement by filing patent infringement suit in federal District Court 2 broad
categories of patent infringement:
1. direct infringement (defendant himself is committing acts that infringe)
2. indirect infringement (defendant contributes to or induces act of direct
infringement by third party)
Direct patent infringement

literal infringement (every limitation recited in the claim)

infringement under doctrine of equivalents (DOE) (tempered by prosecution

history estoppel)

Patent term: 20 years from earliest filing date (pre-TRIPs, 17 years)

Term extension (day-to-day basis):
1. PTO response time

2. Greater than 3 year pendency

3. Interferences, secrecy orders, and appeals
Patent effective and enforceable only upon issuance. Unenforceable after expiry. Can
prepare to use before expiry (Joy Technologies v. Flakt) but making parts for patent about
to expire is an infringement (Paper Converting Machine v. Magna-Graphics Corp).

Claim construction is properly viewed solely as a question of law for the court,
and the construction given the claim is reviewed de novo on appeal. Markman I

The interpretation of a so-called patent claim is a matter of law reserved entirely

for a court. Markman II

Interpretative Aids
Markman:

instrinsic evidence: patent documents (claims, written description, drawings,

prosecution history)

extrinsic evidence: all evidence external to patent and prosecution history

(including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises)
o

helpful

only to aid court

Vitronic Corp v. Conceptronics:

Literal patent infringement analysis: 2 steps:
1. proper construction of the asserted claim
2. determination as to whether the accused method or product infringes the
asserted claim as properly construed
Claim construction a matter of law, reviewed de novo. Court guided by both intrinsic and
extrinsic evidence. First look at intrinsic evidence of record:
1. words of the claims themselves, both asserted and non-asserted, to define scope
of invention
2. always necessary to review specification to determine whether inventor has used
any terms in a manner inconsistent with their ordinary meaning
3. prosecution history of the patent, if in evidence (PTO record often critical)
In most situations, intrinsic evidence will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed claim
term. If so, it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence as intrinsic evidence is the public
record.

10

Doctrine of Equivalents (DOE)

Finding of infringement when an accused infringing device or process is an equivalent
to that claimed in the patent, although not literally the same. Limits on DOE: prosecution
history estoppel certain aspects of prosecution history may operate to limit the scope of
equivalents that may be asserted in later litigation.

If it performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to

obtain the same result. Graver Tank v. Linde Air Products

Survived 1952 revision. Essential inquiry: does the accused product or process
contain elements identical or equivalent to each claimed element of the patented
invention? Different linguistic frameworks may be more suitable to different cases.
Warner-Jenkinson Co v. Hilton Davis Chemical

Constraints:
1. All Limitations (all elements) Rule
2. Public Dedication Rule

Prosecution History Estoppel

Precludes a patent owner in an infringement proceeding from obtaining a construction
of a claim that would in effect resurrect subject matter surrendered during the course of
proceedings in the PTO. Supersedes DOE.

DOE allows the patentee to claim insubstantial alterations. When, however, the
patentee originally claimed the subject matter alleged to infringe but then narrowed
the claim, he may not use DOE. Festo Corp v. Shokestu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki

11