Take the 2-minute tour ×
Ask Patents is a question and answer site for people interested in improving and participating in the patent system. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Patent US8144070 protects the IP concerning the portable Yagi-Uda antenna product called SuperAntenna Model YP-3...

http://newsuperantenna.com/YP3-SuperBeam-Portable-Yagi-Antenna/

The problem is this product has been in production (public disclosure?) from at least one full year before the priority date and well before any patent application date.

Advertisements for this product exist in the April 2008 issue of QST Magazine (page 144) which suggests public disclosure on or well before May 2008. Here is a pic of this ad...

http://www.hamradio.me/rdn/Superantenna_YP3_April_2008_Ad.jpg

Reviews of this product exist as early as May 2008...

http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/7540?page=3

Here is a manual for the patented design with dates of September 9, 2008 including a drawing (Page 4) with a date of April 18, 2008...

http://www.mydarc.de/dk7zb/portabel/test_yp3.htm

http://www.mydarc.de/dk7zb/portabel/YP-3/Super_Antennas_YAGI_Manual.pdf


Questions:

Does manufacturing of this product over a year before first patent filing make this Yagi Antenna Idea it's own Prior Art?

Does revealing the design via a simple advertisement before May 1, 2008 constitute public disclosure in the US?

Does selling the product to anyone before May 1, 2008 constitute public disclosure in the US?

What about countries without the 12 month rule? The antenna was certainly in full manufacture well before the May 1, 2009 date.

Thanks for any help clarifying the above.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

A product being made and sold by the inventor/applicant more than a year before the earliest filing is definitely good prior art to a patent claiming features of the product.

The inventor's patent agent did file an IDS form (below) making the examiner aware of some things they knew about. A product instruction manual published before the year grace period should also have been included. Unless the claims are all targeted to a new feature introduced after May 2008 it is hard to see how this was done properly.

enter image description here

The year clock of the grace period can be started by an offer for sale even if no sale is made as long as the product is ready for patenting at that time. This assumes that the version of the product actually had the feature being covered in a claim. In this case claim 1 is directed to a physical adjustability to support a variety of wavelengths and the general "knock down" design.

However an enabling disclosure like the product review is easier to use as proof.

share|improve this answer
1  
I amended the original question with some specific examples of prior art. I'll digitize the QST page at some point. –  JSH Jul 31 '13 at 12:41
    
Hi George. I added a link to a photo of the ad copy from April 2008. This big question for me about all this is what constitutes public disclosure for any patent. Is the ad enough? –  JSH Aug 1 '13 at 2:04
    
George was there an "IDS Form" to view when you said "below?" –  JSH Aug 2 '13 at 0:25

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.