1

Patent US 7706365 B2 has, according to Google a priority date of date of Nov 25, 2003. I found a paper containing the invention described in the patent presented by the authors of the paper in a conference that was between October 1 - Friday, October 3, 2003 and another paper from a conference around 4 July 2003.

Is this to be considered prior art for the patent? If so how to request a re-examination of the patent?

The patent has some potential of becoming important, so better to clarify it validity early on.

Improve this question
1
  • 1
    The short answer is no - as long as the papers where from the inventors. Someone else's publication is prior art right away but (to simplify) your own work can't be cited against you for one year - In the U.S. Everywhere else it would be prior art.
    – George White ♦
    May 30, 2014 at 19:05

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

Short answer: The first paper has a prior art date under 35 USC 102(a), however, the second paper does not have a prior art date under 35 USC 102. Furthermore, both of these papers have already been considered by the Examiner (see second page of the patent). If I understand correctly, a re-examination is for new material not considered by the Examiner.

US Patent 7,706,365 claims priority to a provisional application (60/524,926) filed on November 25, 2003. For the purpose of this question, it is assumed that the provisional application has support for the claims (if not, then the application would only have priority from it's filing date).

The patent's "inventive entity" consists of five inventors: Effors, Ho, Karger, Koetter, and Medard.

The first paper ("On Randomized Network Coding") has a publication date of October 1, 2003 and authorship of Ho, Medard, Shi, Effros, Karger. Because "Ralf Koetter" is an inventor on the patent, while "Jun Shi" is an author of the paper, it is understood that the paper is written by "others", as that term is used in pre-AIA USC 102, the statute that spells out which documents are prior art.

The second paper ("The Benefits of Coding over Routing in a Randomized Setting") has a publication date of June 29, 2003 and an authorship of Ho, Koetter, Medard, Karger, and Effros. The authors of this paper are the same as the inventors of the patent, and therefore this activity is not by "others"

The first paper has a prior art date under 35 USC 102(a) because the activity (publication) is by others, and not by the inventive entity named in the patent. However, this paper has already been considered by the Examiner and may not be eligible for a re-examination (see the second page of the patent).

The second paper does not have a prior art date under 35 USC 102(a) because the activity is by the inventors, and not by others. Before the AIA(America Invents Act of 2011), activity by the inventors had a 1-year grace period before becoming prior art against the inventors' own patent. Publications more than 1 year before the patent filing date were known as a "statutory bar" under 35 USC 102(b).

Below are some citations to patent law and the patent examining manual. I hope that helps!

MPEP [Manual of Patent Examining Procedure] 2132 Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the invention was known or used 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 a patent.

MPEP 2133 Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(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 application for patent in the United States.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .