patentably

Thus, the relevant time frame for determining whether a product and process are "patentably distinct" should be at the filing date of the secondary application.

Archive 2009-04-01 Peter Zura 2009

This approach allows an applicant to rely on some later-developed methods to show that the product and process are "patentably distinct," even though the alternative processes for making that product may not have been known at the filing date of the primary application.

Archive 2009-04-01 Peter Zura 2009

This approach allows an applicant to rely on some later-developed methods to show that the product and process are "patentably distinct," even though the alternative processes for making that product may not have been known at the filing date of the primary application.

CAFC: Subsequent Developments OK For Double-Patenting Distinction Peter Zura 2009

When filing the secondary application, the applicant essentially avers that the product and process are "patentably distinct."

Archive 2009-04-01 Peter Zura 2009

The novel legal question in this case asks if later-developed alternative processes are relevant in the product-process "patentably distinct" inquiry.

CAFC: Subsequent Developments OK For Double-Patenting Distinction Peter Zura 2009

When an issued patent claims a product and discloses, but does not claim, a process for making that product, the patentee, when later seeking a patent on the disclosed process, may present evidence of post-invention, alternative processes that produce the patented product, in order to show that the process and product are patentably distinct.

Fed. Cir.: Section 121 "Safe Harbor" Provision Does Not Apply to Continuations Peter Zura 2009

Thus, the relevant time frame for determining whether a product and process are "patentably distinct" should be at the filing date of the secondary application.

CAFC: Subsequent Developments OK For Double-Patenting Distinction Peter Zura 2009

When an issued patent claims a product and discloses, but does not claim, a process for making that product, the patentee, when later seeking a patent on the disclosed process, may present evidence of post-invention, alternative processes that produce the patented product, in order to show that the process and product are patentably distinct.

Archive 2009-09-01 Peter Zura 2009

When filing the secondary application, the applicant essentially avers that the product and process are "patentably distinct."

CAFC: Subsequent Developments OK For Double-Patenting Distinction Peter Zura 2009

The novel legal question in this case asks if later-developed alternative processes are relevant in the product-process "patentably distinct" inquiry.

Archive 2009-04-01 Peter Zura 2009