The "How to Avoid Common Pitfalls in Combined EU/US Patent Applications" conference has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.
How to Avoid Common Pitfalls in Combined EU/US Patent Applications. This seminar addresses the parallel, but substantially different, rules for drafting and prosecuting patents required by the Examiners and Appeal Boards of the EPO and USPTO.
This course addresses the parallel, but substantially different, rules for drafting and prosecuting patents required by the examiners and Boards of Appeal of the EPO and USPTO.
You will study the contrasting approaches of the EPO and USPTO and learn the experts' techniques for drafting an application for, and responding to, rejections issued by the two offices.
- You and the other delegates will be invited to correct and modify a sample application to be filed with both the EPO and USPTO
- You will be asked to develop effective arguments for the EPO and USPTO with respect to hypothetical patent office rejections
Who Should Attend:
- Patent professionals and other executives who are responsible for patent applications that are filed in, and prosecuted before, both the European and US Patent Offices
- Managers overseeing and evaluating the multinational patent prosecution
Programme Day One
Review of the similarities and differences in the statutory systems of the EPO and USPTO
- Legal aspects
Best practices' for preparing one specification to comply with the European and US requirements for:
- Added subject matter/new matter
- Industrial application/utility
- Inventive step/non-obviousness
- Description and sufficient basis/enablement and written description
- Claim clarity and conciseness/distinct claiming'
- Limiting estoppel and implications of the AIA
EPO/US: Prosecution and appeal procedures
- Likely timelines and statutory deadlines
- Burdens of proof
- Use of provisional and non-provisional applications
- Objections and rejections
- Non-final and final Office Actions
- Patent Office appeals
- Judicial appeals
EPO/US definitions of prior art and priority
- Article 54 definitions of state of the art'
- Definitions of prior art' for anticipation and obviousness
Question and answer session
Programme day two
EPO/US: Rejections and responses
- Inventive step (EPO) vs obviousness (USPTO)
- EPO/US: Strategies for persuading the examiner and Board
Prosecution history estoppel in the US
- Estoppel variants
- Controlling the adverse impact of arguments to the USPTO
- Effect of representations made in corresponding, non-US applications
- Disclosure obligations after
Arguments on non-technical (EPO) and subject matter (US)
- Article 52(2), (3) exclusions - Technical'
- Two hurdles
- Potential technical effect T26/86 Koch & Sterzel
- Computer program/signal claims
- Arguments to the USPTO after Alice
- Abstract vs structural limitations
- USPTO Examination instructions
- Delegates will be invited to analyse and modify sample applications suitable for the EPO and USPTO
- Delegates will be asked to develop effective arguments for the EPO and USPTO with respect to a series of hypothetical office actions
- Delegates and speakers will discuss the worked examples with the aim of optimising specifications acceptable to both the EPO and USPTO
For more information about this conference visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/16irzb