In article ,
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

The way the law is written, it doesn't matter if "I didn't tell anyone".
Even if you did, if I filed for a patent first (even by two hours), I
get the patent.

Prior art, published or unpublished, is immaterial.

Cite, please? Which specific wording are you referring to?

What you say flies directly in the face of what the USPTO says:

################

http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/patents.jsp#heading-4

How do I know if my invention is patentable?
--------------------------------------------

First, review the list of what can and cannot be patented and
determine if your invention falls into one of those categories.

Second, learn the basics of the patenting process from the materials
provided by the USPTO at 800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP or under
"General Information." .

Next, a search of all previous public disclosures (prior art)
including, but not limited to previously patented inventions in the
U.S. (prior art) should be conducted to determine if your invention
has been publicly disclosed and thus is not patentable. A search of
foreign patents and printed publications should also be
conducted. While a search of the prior art before the filing of an
application is not required, it is advisable to do so. A registered
attorney or agent is often a useful resource for performance of a
patentability search. After an application is filed, the USPTO will
conduct a search as part of the official examination
process. Conducting a thorough patent search is difficult,
particularly for the novice. Patent searching is a learned skill.

################

Also see

http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementat...t_inventor.jsp

which is the Patent Office's summary of the "first inventor to file"
changes:

Question FITF1054: Did pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 102(e) disappear
after the first-inventor-to-file provision became effective on March
16, 2013? Will all anticipation rejections be made under 35
U.S.C. 102(a) after March 16, 2013?

If an application is a pre-AIA (FTI) application, examiners will
continue to make prior art rejections (if appropriate) on the basis of
publications and activities that qualify as prior art under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 102(a), 102(b), 102(e), 102(f) and 102(g). By contrast, if the
application is an AIA (FITF) application, examiners will make prior
art rejections (if appropriate) on the basis of publications and
activities that qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or
102(a)(2).

Question FITF1057: How should applicant's admitted prior art be
treated under the AIA?

The AIA does not change the current policy discussed in MPEP 2129 with
respect to the use of s admissions as prior art. A statement by an
applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying
the work of another prior is an admission that can be relied upon for
both anticipation and obviousness determinations. See Examination
Guidelines for Implementing the First Inventor to File Provisions of
the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 78 Fed. Reg. 11059, 11064, 11075
(Feb. 14, 2013) (response to comment 20 ).

Question FITF1058: For Web references, does the USPTO use archive.org
(aka, "The Wayback Machine") to get the actual publication date rather
than printout date of the Web reference?

Yes, examiners The Wayback as a source of information to determine
when a Web reference was first made available to the public.

(There are numerous additional questions and answers in this page
about how "prior art" rejections occur under the new rules).

###############

Then, go to the actual text of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act at
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1249/text, and read:

(b)Conditions for Patentability

(1)In general

Section 102 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:

102.Conditions for patentability; novelty
(a)Novelty; Prior Art
A person shall be entitled to a unless patent

(1)the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed
publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the
public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(2)the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under
section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed
published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as
the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

##############

As far as I can see, none of this supports your assertion that
"Prior art, published or unpublished, is immaterial."

On 11/10/2014 9:25 PM, David Platt wrote:
In article ,
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

The way the law is written, it doesn't matter if "I didn't tell anyone".
Even if you did, if I filed for a patent first (even by two hours), I
get the patent.

Prior art, published or unpublished, is immaterial.

Cite, please? Which specific wording are you referring to?


USPTO web site - see the link I pointed to earlier.

What you say flies directly in the face of what the USPTO says:

################

http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/patents.jsp#heading-4

How do I know if my invention is patentable?
--------------------------------------------

First, review the list of what can and cannot be patented and
determine if your invention falls into one of those categories.

Second, learn the basics of the patenting process from the materials
provided by the USPTO at 800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP or under
"General Information." .

Next, a search of all previous public disclosures (prior art)
including, but not limited to previously patented inventions in the
U.S. (prior art) should be conducted to determine if your invention
has been publicly disclosed and thus is not patentable. A search of
foreign patents and printed publications should also be
conducted. While a search of the prior art before the filing of an
application is not required, it is advisable to do so. A registered
attorney or agent is often a useful resource for performance of a
patentability search. After an application is filed, the USPTO will
conduct a search as part of the official examination
process. Conducting a thorough patent search is difficult,
particularly for the novice. Patent searching is a learned skill.

################


Immaterial for this discussion.

Also see

http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementat...t_inventor.jsp

which is the Patent Office's summary of the "first inventor to file"
changes:

Question FITF1054: Did pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 102(e) disappear
after the first-inventor-to-file provision became effective on March
16, 2013? Will all anticipation rejections be made under 35
U.S.C. 102(a) after March 16, 2013?

If an application is a pre-AIA (FTI) application, examiners will
continue to make prior art rejections (if appropriate) on the basis of
publications and activities that qualify as prior art under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 102(a), 102(b), 102(e), 102(f) and 102(g). By contrast, if the
application is an AIA (FITF) application, examiners will make prior
art rejections (if appropriate) on the basis of publications and
activities that qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or
102(a)(2).

Question FITF1057: How should applicant's admitted prior art be
treated under the AIA?

The AIA does not change the current policy discussed in MPEP 2129 with
respect to the use of s admissions as prior art. A statement by an
applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying
the work of another prior is an admission that can be relied upon for
both anticipation and obviousness determinations. See Examination
Guidelines for Implementing the First Inventor to File Provisions of
the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 78 Fed. Reg. 11059, 11064, 11075
(Feb. 14, 2013) (response to comment 20 ).

Question FITF1058: For Web references, does the USPTO use archive.org
(aka, "The Wayback Machine") to get the actual publication date rather
than printout date of the Web reference?

Yes, examiners The Wayback as a source of information to determine
when a Web reference was first made available to the public.

(There are numerous additional questions and answers in this page
about how "prior art" rejections occur under the new rules).

###############

Then, go to the actual text of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act at
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1249/text, and read:

(b)Conditions for Patentability

(1)In general

Section 102 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:

102.Conditions for patentability; novelty
(a)Novelty; Prior Art
A person shall be entitled to a unless patent

(1)the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed
publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the
public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(2)the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under
section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed
published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as
the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

##############

As far as I can see, none of this supports your assertion that
"Prior art, published or unpublished, is immaterial."


You need to understand U.S. Patent law.

I'm not going to try to argue with you. I got my information from a
well-respected patent attorney here in the Washington, D.C. area. I
suggest you do the same. Otherwise you'll just argue with anything I say.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

(David Platt) wrote in news:2l88jb-
:

Question FITF1058: For Web references, does the USPTO use archive.org
(aka, "The Wayback Machine") to get the actual publication date rather
than printout date of the Web reference?

Yes, examiners The Wayback as a source of information to determine
when a Web reference was first made available to the public.


This is interesting, for two reasons: It suggests that self-publication on a
personal web site is adequately public for official record (past sites of
mine turned up in that archive). Given the number of web archives of Usenet,
even comments I have made here might help me sometime, though not a lot, I
haven't said enough detail about the innards of my phasemod synthesier to
mean much here.

Second reason is that if the Wayback Machine is a serious resource for the
USPTO, it may imply that it's really in for the long haul. I have always had
some doubts about that based on that old 'downloading the internet' joke.
But I guess they found a way to cope, to manage what they kept, vs what they
did not.

I won't rely on this alone to establish my own prior art though...