Appeal No. 2005-0371
Application No. 10/210,313
work of another. A literal reading might appear to
make a prior patent or printed publication “prior art”
even through the disclosure is that of the applicant’s
own work. However, such an interpretation of this
section of the statute would negate the one year period
afforded under §102(b)[footnote omitted] during which
an inventor is allowed to perfect, develop and apply
for a patent on his invention and publish descriptions
of it if he wishes. Illinois Tool v. Solo Cup Co., 461
F.2d 265, 172 USPQ 385 (CA 7), cert. denied, 407 U.S.
916 (1972).
Thus, one’s own work is not prior art under
§102(a) even though it has been disclosed to the public
in a manner or form which otherwise would fall under
§102(a). Disclosure to the public of one’s own work
constitutes a bar to the grant of a patent claiming the
subject matter so disclosed (or subject matter obvious
therefrom) only when the disclosure occurred more than
one year prior to the date of the application, that is,
when the disclosure creates a one-year time bar,
frequently termed a “statutory bar,” to the application
under §102(b). As stated by this court in In re
Facius, 56 CCPA 1348, 1358, 408 F.2d 1396, 1406, 161
USPQ 294, 302 (1969), “But certainly one’s own
invention, whatever the form of disclosure to the
public, may not be prior art against oneself, absent a
statutory bar.”
Hence, the published European application is not prior art
under § 102(a) with respect to the subject matter recited in
claims 1 through 10. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejection of these claims.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007