Appeal No. 2006-0132
Application No. 09/946,627
claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 16 and 17 obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art within the meaning of section 103(a). Id. Rather, the
appellants argue that Wanthal is not available as “prior art”
because Wanthal is not a “printed publication” within the meaning
of Section 102(b) and was not “‘known by others’ in this country
before the invention by the applicant within the meaning of
§ 102(a)." See, e.g., the Brief, page 12.
We are not persuaded by the appellants’ arguments.
35 U.S.C. ' 102 (2002) reads in part:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless
(a) the invention was known ... by others in this
country, or patented or described in a printed
publication in this or a foreign country, before the
invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was 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 in the
United States... .
Although section 102(a) broadly defines prior art as an
“invention ... known ... by others,” it is interpreted as
including only publicly known or publicly accessible
information. See Chisum on Patents ' 3.05[3] at 3-176
(2001). Consistent with Chisum on Patents, the court in
Baron v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 25 USPQ2d 1641, 1662 (W.D. N.Y.
1992) stated that:
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007