Antedating in patent law
The '915 patent also describes an improved scrolling feature called "rubberbanding." When a user scrolls past the edge of the content on the screen, a predetermined amount of blank space is displayed and then the content slides back to fit on the screen, resembling the motion of a taut rubber band when the tension is released from one end.For example, if a user scrolls too far such that no content remains in the direction of the scroll -- ., a user scrolls down when the screen is already displaying the most recent email at the top -- the phone will show a predetermined amount of blank space above the most recent email and will slide the content back onto the screen at the end of the scroll.The current local novelty standard will be replaced by the absolute novelty standard, which will bring New Zealand into alignment with major jurisdictions around the world.Under the current provisions, inventive step (obviousness) was not considered during examination (although it was a ground for opposition or revocation).Claim 1 recites a method that invokes the "scroll or gesture" limitation in dispute in this case: 1.A machine implemented method for scrolling on a touch-sensitive display of a device comprising: receiving a user input, the user input is one or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the device; creating an event object in response to the user input; determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation by ; issuing at least one scroll or gesture call based on invoking the scroll or gesture operation; responding to at least one scroll call, if issued, by scrolling a window having a view associated with the event object based on an amount of a scroll with the scroll stopped at a predetermined position in relation to the user input; and responding to at least one gesture call, if issued, by scaling the view associated with the event object based on receiving the two or more input points in the form of the user input.The most significant changes include: The current standard gives applicants the 'benefit of the doubt'.This will be replaced by the more stringent ‘balance of probabilities’ test.
When an application made by applicant claims more than one invention, the applicant on his own or to meet the official objection may divide the application and file two or more applications, as applicable for each of the inventions.under the reservation embodied in Patent Cooperation Treaty Article 64(4)(a). to overcome these pitfalls., 359 F.2d 859 (CCPA 1966). During the examination of the Hilmer application at the USPTO, the Examiner rejected its claims over another U. patent (the Habicht patent) based on a Swiss priority date of the Habicht patent, not the later U. filing date of the Habicht patent, because the Habicht patent’s U. filing date was later than the German application's priority date claimed by Hilmer’s application. filing date of the reference was later than the earliest effective filing date (the German priority date of the German application), the Court reversed the rejection.This article proposes an alternative filing strategy for foreign (non-U. The court held that the reference's Swiss priority date could not be relied on in a 35 USC 102(e) rejection. Under 35 USC 102(e), the filing date of a PCT international application published in English is a prior art effective date only if it is published in English. Thus, a national stage publication filed, under 35 USC 371, on or after November 29, 2000 that was published in English under PCT Article 21(2), would obtain the benefit of the earliest possible 35 USC 102(e) date—the foreign filing date. application claiming priority to a German application.Yet, many foreign companies and law firms adversely, though unnecessarily, use inbound filing strategies that do not obtain this earliest possible 35 USC 102(e) date. application publication, or WIPO publication issues from, or claims benefit to, an IA that has an international filing date on or after 11/29/00, designated the United States, and was published in English by WIPO (under PCT Article 21(2)) the 35 USC 102(e) date is the international filing date, or any earlier effective U. This simple example clarified the benefits of the alternative filing strategy.