1. Accurate records evidencing date of invention.
-Bound Notebooks
-Entries should be witnessed by 2 non-inventors who understand the invention. Sign and date the applicable notebook pages.
-Also assists in determining who the inventors are.
2. CONCEPTION = completion of the mental part of the invention. Formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention. Conception is complete when only the idea is so clearly defined in the mind of the inventor that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation. Must be a specific, settled idea, not just a general goal or research idea. An inventor need not know that the invention will work for conception to be complete; need only show that the idea was complete.
3. REDUCTION TO PRACTICE = Can be shown by actual working prototype, laboratory experiment; or by prophetic description in the patent application (constructive reduction).
1. Accurate records evidencing date of invention.
-Bound Notebooks
-Entries should be witnessed by 2 non-inventors who understand the invention. Sign and date the applicable notebook pages.
-Also assists in determining who the inventors are.
2. CONCEPTION = completion of the mental part of the invention. Formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention. Conception is complete when only the idea is so clearly defined in the mind of the inventor that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation. Must be a specific, settled idea, not just a general goal or research idea. An inventor need not know that the invention will work for conception to be complete; need only show that the idea was complete.
3. REDUCTION TO PRACTICE = Can be shown by actual working prototype, laboratory experiment; or by prophetic description in the patent application (constructive reduction).
4. Once on file, products/literature can be marked with the notice “Patent Pending”
1. Accurate records evidencing date of invention.
-Bound Notebooks
-Entries should be witnessed by 2 non-inventors who understand the invention. Sign and date the applicable notebook pages.
-Also assists in determining who the inventors are.
2. CONCEPTION = completion of the mental part of the invention. Formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention. Conception is complete when only the idea is so clearly defined in the mind of the inventor that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation. Must be a specific, settled idea, not just a general goal or research idea. An inventor need not know that the invention will work for conception to be complete; need only show that the idea was complete.
3. REDUCTION TO PRACTICE = Can be shown by actual working prototype, laboratory experiment; or by prophetic description in the patent application (constructive reduction).
4. Once on file, products/literature can be marked with the notice “Patent Pending”
1. Accurate records evidencing date of invention.
-Bound Notebooks
-Entries should be witnessed by 2 non-inventors who understand the invention. Sign and date the applicable notebook pages.
-Also assists in determining who the inventors are.
2. CONCEPTION = completion of the mental part of the invention. Formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention. Conception is complete when only the idea is so clearly defined in the mind of the inventor that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation. Must be a specific, settled idea, not just a general goal or research idea. An inventor need not know that the invention will work for conception to be complete; need only show that the idea was complete.
3. REDUCTION TO PRACTICE = Can be shown by actual working prototype, laboratory experiment; or by prophetic description in the patent application (constructive reduction).
4. Once on file, products/literature can be marked with the notice “Patent Pending”
Not to be confused with the one-year grace period for filing U.S. application under Section 102(b).
A invents in US and files US application (the same day) on 1/1/98
B invents in Germany and files German application (the same day) on 7/1/98
A files German application on 12/31/98, claiming the benefit of US filing date under the Paris Convention
B files US application on 6/30/99, claiming the benefit of German filing date under the Paris Convention
A wins in US (first-to-invent jurisdiction), because A was the first to invent
A also wins in Germany (first-to-file jurisdiction) because A’s German application has an effective filing date of 1/1/98, beating B’s filing date
A invents in US and files US application (the same day) on 1/1/98
B invents in Germany and files German application (the same day) on 7/1/98
A files German application on 12/31/98, claiming the benefit of US filing date under the Paris Convention
B files US application on 6/30/99, claiming the benefit of German filing date under the Paris Convention
A wins in US (first-to-invent jurisdiction), because A was the first to invent
A also wins in Germany (first-to-file jurisdiction) because A’s German application has an effective filing date of 1/1/98, beating B’s filing date
A invents in US and files US application (the same day) on 1/1/98
B invents in Germany and files German application (the same day) on 7/1/98
A files German application on 12/31/98, claiming the benefit of US filing date under the Paris Convention
B files US application on 6/30/99, claiming the benefit of German filing date under the Paris Convention
A wins in US (first-to-invent jurisdiction), because A was the first to invent
A also wins in Germany (first-to-file jurisdiction) because A’s German application has an effective filing date of 1/1/98, beating B’s filing date
A invents in US and files US application (the same day) on 1/1/98
B invents in Germany and files German application (the same day) on 7/1/98
A files German application on 12/31/98, claiming the benefit of US filing date under the Paris Convention
B files US application on 6/30/99, claiming the benefit of German filing date under the Paris Convention
A wins in US (first-to-invent jurisdiction), because A was the first to invent
A also wins in Germany (first-to-file jurisdiction) because A’s German application has an effective filing date of 1/1/98, beating B’s filing date
A invents in US on 1/1/98, but delays filing in US application until 8/1/98
B invents in Germany and files German application (the same day) on 7/1/98
A files US application on 8/1/98 and one year later files German application claiming benefit of US filing date
B files US application on 6/30/99, claiming the benefit of German filing date under the Paris Convention
A wins in US (first-to-invent jurisdiction), because A was the first to invent
B wins in Germany (first-to-file), because A’s effective filing date in Germany is now after B’s
A invents in US on 1/1/98, but delays filing in US application until 8/1/98
B invents in Germany and files German application (the same day) on 7/1/98
A files US application on 8/1/98 and one year later files German application claiming benefit of US filing date
B files US application on 6/30/99, claiming the benefit of German filing date under the Paris Convention
A wins in US (first-to-invent jurisdiction), because A was the first to invent
B wins in Germany (first-to-file), because A’s effective filing date in Germany is now after B’s
A invents in US on 1/1/98, but delays filing in US application until 8/1/98
B invents in Germany and files German application (the same day) on 7/1/98
A files US application on 8/1/98 and one year later files German application claiming benefit of US filing date
B files US application on 6/30/99, claiming the benefit of German filing date under the Paris Convention
A wins in US (first-to-invent jurisdiction), because A was the first to invent
B wins in Germany (first-to-file), because A’s effective filing date in Germany is now after B’s
A invents in US on 1/1/98, but delays filing in US application until 8/1/98
B invents in Germany and files German application (the same day) on 7/1/98
A files US application on 8/1/98 and one year later files German application claiming benefit of US filing date
B files US application on 6/30/99, claiming the benefit of German filing date under the Paris Convention
A wins in US (first-to-invent jurisdiction), because A was the first to invent
B wins in Germany (first-to-file), because A’s effective filing date in Germany is now after B’s
A invents in US on 1/1/98, but delays filing in US application until 8/1/98
B invents in Germany and files German application (the same day) on 7/1/98
A files US application on 8/1/98 and one year later files German application claiming benefit of US filing date
B files US application on 6/30/99, claiming the benefit of German filing date under the Paris Convention
A wins in US (first-to-invent jurisdiction), because A was the first to invent
B wins in Germany (first-to-file), because A’s effective filing date in Germany is now after B’s
A invents in US on 1/1/98. This time, however, A delays filing US patent application until 8/1/98.
B invents in Germany on 7/1/98. This time, however, instead of filing a German patent application B publishes the invention on the internet on the same day.
A files German application on 7/31/99, claiming the benefit of US filing date under the Paris Convention
A can still get US patent, since A was first to invent and since B’s publication was not more than one year prior to A’s US filing date
A’s is barred from getting a German patent, since Germany is an absolute novelty country and since the effective filing date of A’s German application is after B’s publication
A invents in US on 1/1/98. This time, however, A delays filing US patent application until 8/1/98.
B invents in Germany on 7/1/98. This time, however, instead of filing a German patent application B publishes the invention on the internet on the same day.
A files German application on 7/31/99, claiming the benefit of US filing date under the Paris Convention
A can still get US patent, since A was first to invent and since B’s publication was not more than one year prior to A’s US filing date
A’s is barred from getting a German patent, since Germany is an absolute novelty country and since the effective filing date of A’s German application is after B’s publication
A invents in US on 1/1/98. This time, however, A delays filing US patent application until 8/1/98.
B invents in Germany on 7/1/98. This time, however, instead of filing a German patent application B publishes the invention on the internet on the same day.
A files German application on 7/31/99, claiming the benefit of US filing date under the Paris Convention
A can still get US patent, since A was first to invent and since B’s publication was not more than one year prior to A’s US filing date
A’s is barred from getting a German patent, since Germany is an absolute novelty country and since the effective filing date of A’s German application is after B’s publication
A invents in US on 1/1/98. This time, however, A delays filing US patent application until 8/1/98.
B invents in Germany on 7/1/98. This time, however, instead of filing a German patent application B publishes the invention on the internet on the same day.
A files German application on 7/31/99, claiming the benefit of US filing date under the Paris Convention
A can still get US patent, since A was first to invent and since B’s publication was not more than one year prior to A’s US filing date
A’s is barred from getting a German patent, since Germany is an absolute novelty country and since the effective filing date of A’s German application is after B’s publication
To avoid infringement, all a competitor must show is the absence of any one or more elements of the claim. So, for example, a competitors product can have elements A and C through Z, but not B, and it will not infringe.
How are these two different?
Leg configuration.
Back rest.
In fact, you are going to have difficult showing that any chair that has a different leg configuration infringes this claim.
Limited to chairs with discrete legs at the corners.
Due to the back rest limitation, you give up the stool market.
But not limited to any particular leg configuration
