data/2100/s2136.html.txt

[
# 2136 Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) [R-10.2019]


*[Editor Note: This MPEP section is **not applicable** to applications
 subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as
 set forth in **[35 U.S.C. 100 (note)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d917_1bef1_2b)**, except for determining eligibility of SIRs
 as eligible prior art. See **[MPEP § 2159](s2159.html#ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd)** et seq. to determine
 whether an application is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and
 **[MPEP §
 2150](s2150.html#ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e)** et seq. for examination of applications subject to those
 provisions.]*



#### *Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102   
 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.*


A person shall be entitled to a patent unless-


\*\*\*\*\*


* (e) the invention was described in — (1) an application for patent,
 published under **[section 122(b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303054)**, by another filed in the United States
 before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an
 application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention
 by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under
 the treaty defined in **[section 351(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e306867)** shall have the
 effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United
 States only if the international application designated the United States and was
 published under **[Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)** of such treaty in the English language.


\*\*\*\*\*



**[Pre-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** allows the use of certain international application
 publications and U.S. patent application publications, and certain U.S. patents as prior
 art under **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of their respective U.S. filing dates, including
 certain international filing dates. The prior art date of a reference under
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** may be the international filing date if the international
 filing date was on or after November 29, 2000, the international application designated the
 United States, and the international application was published by the World Intellectual
 Property Organization (WIPO) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty **[(PCT) Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)**
 in the English language. References based on international applications that were filed
 prior to November 29, 2000 are subject to the pre-AIPA version of 35 U.S.C. 102(e) (i.e.,
 the version in force on November 28, 2000). See **[MPEP § 2136.03](s2136.html#d0e205924)** for additional information. 
 


In accordance with former **[35 U.S.C. 157(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e304339)**, a published SIR will
 be treated the same as a U.S. patent for all defensive purposes, usable as a reference as
 of its filing date in the same manner as a U.S. patent. A SIR is prior art under all
 applicable sections of **[35
 U.S.C. 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** including **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. See
 **[MPEP §
 1111](s1111.html#d0e119278)**.
 


**[Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** is mostly utilized when the publication or issue date is too
 recent for the reference to be applied under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** or
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302395)**. In order to apply a reference under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**, the inventive entity of the application must be different
 from that of the cited reference. Note that, where there are joint inventors, only one
 inventor needs to be different for the inventive entities to be different; put another way,
 a rejection under **[pre-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** is applicable even if there are some inventors in
 common between the application and the cited reference.
 


Below are examination guidelines on the application of
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. 
 

**I.** **DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) DATE FOR EACH POTENTIAL
 REFERENCE BY FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES, EXAMPLES, AND FLOW CHARTS SET FORTH
 BELOW:*** (A) The potential reference must be a U.S. patent, a U.S. application
 publication (**[35 U.S.C. 122(b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303054)**) or a WIPO publication of an international
 application under **[PCT Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363634)** in order to
 apply the reference under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**.
* (B) Determine if the potential reference resulted from, or claimed the
 benefit of, an international application. If the reference does, go to step (C)
 below. The **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date of a reference that did not
 result from, nor claimed the benefit of, an international application is its
 earliest effective U.S. filing date, taking into consideration any proper benefit
 claims to prior U.S. applications under **[35 U.S.C. 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)** or
 **[120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**. For all benefit claims, the prior application(s) must
 properly support the subject matter used to make the rejection in compliance with
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first paragraph or **[35 U.S.C.
 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**. See **[MPEP § 2136.02](s2136.html#d0e205829)**. In addition, for
 benefit claims under **[35 U.S.C. 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302951)**, at least one
 claim of the potential reference must be supported by the written description of
 the relied upon provisional application in compliance with **[pre- AIA 35 U.S.C.
 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**, first paragraph, or **[35 U.S.C.
 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**, in order for the potential reference to be usable as
 prior art under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** as of a relied upon provisional
 application’s filing date. See **[MPEP § 2136.03](s2136.html#d0e205924)**, subsection
 III.
* (C) If the potential reference resulted from, or claimed the benefit
 of, an international application, the following must be determined:
	+ (1) If the international application meets the following three
	 conditions:
		- (a) an international filing date on or after November 29,
		 2000;
		- (b) designated the United States; and
		- (c) published under **[PCT Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363634)**
		 in English,
	+ then the international filing date is a U.S. filing date for
	 prior art purposes under  **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
	 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. If such an international application properly
	 claims benefit to an earlier-filed U.S. or international application, or to
	 an earlier-filed U.S. provisional application, apply the reference under
	 **[pre-AIA
	 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of the earlier filing date,
	 provided all the conditions of **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
	 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**, **[119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302951)**,
	 **[120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**, **[365(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307053)**, or
	 **[386(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d225a2_29a9c_1b3)** are met. For all
	 benefit claims, the subject matter used in the rejection must be disclosed
	 in the earlier-filed application in compliance with **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
	 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first paragraph, or **[35 U.S.C.
	 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**, in order for that subject matter to be
	 entitled to the earlier filing date under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
	 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. See **[MPEP § 2136.02](s2136.html#d0e205829)**. In
	 addition, for benefit claims under **[35 U.S.C. 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302951)**, at
	 least one claim of the potential reference must be supported by the written
	 description of the relied upon provisional application in compliance with
	 **[pre-AIA
	 35 U.S.C. 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first paragraph, or **[35 U.S.C.
	 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**, in order for the potential reference to be
	 usable as prior art under  **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
	 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of a relied upon provisional application’s
	 filing date. See **[MPEP § 2136.03](s2136.html#d0e205924)**, subsection
	 III. Note, where the earlier application is an international application,
	 the earlier international application must satisfy the same three conditions
	 (i.e., filed on or after November 29, 2000, designated the U.S., and had
	 been published in English under **[PCT Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363634)**) for
	 the earlier international filing date to be a U.S. filing date for prior art
	 purposes under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
	 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**.
	+ (2) If the international application was filed on or after
	 November 29, 2000, but did **not** designate the United States or
	 was **not** published in English under **[PCT Article
	 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363634)**, do **not** treat the international
	 filing date as a U.S. filing date for prior art purposes. In this situation,
	 do **not** apply the reference as of its international filing date,
	 its date of completion of the **[35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and
	 (4)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307164)** requirements, or any earlier filing date to which
	 such an international application claims benefit or priority. The reference
	 may be applied under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**
	 or **[pre-AIA
	 35 U.S.C. 102(b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302395)** as of its publication date, or
	 **[pre-AIA
	 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of any later U.S. filing date of
	 an application that properly claimed the benefit of the international
	 application (if applicable).
	+ (3) If the international application has an international filing
	 date prior to November 29, 2000, apply the reference under the provisions of
	 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 374, prior to the AIPA amendments:
		- (a) For U.S. patents, apply the reference under
		 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of the earlier of
		 the date of completion of the requirements of **[35 U.S.C.
		 371(c)(1), (2) and (4)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307164)** or the filing date of the
		 later-filed U.S. application that claimed the benefit of the
		 international application;
		- (b) For U.S. application publications and WIPO
		 publications directly resulting from international applications under
		 **[PCT Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)**, never apply these references
		 under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
		 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. These references may be applied as of
		 their publication dates under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
		 102(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** or **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
		 102(b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302395)**;
		- (c) For U.S. application publications of applications that
		 claim the benefit under **[35 U.S.C. 120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)** or
		 **[365(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307053)** of an international application filed
		 prior to November 29, 2000, apply the reference under
		 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of the actual
		 filing date of the later-filed U.S. application that claimed the
		 benefit of the international application.
	+ (4) Examiners should be aware that although a publication of, or
	 a U.S. Patent issued from, an international application may not have a
	 **[pre-AIA
	 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date at all, or may have a
	 **[pre-AIA
	 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date that is after the effective
	 filing date of the claimed invention in an application being examined (so it
	 is not "prior art"), the corresponding WIPO publication of an international
	 application may have an earlier **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**
	 or **[pre-AIA
	 35 U.S.C. 102(b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302395)**) date.
* (D) Foreign application filing dates that are claimed (via
 **[35 U.S.C.
 119(a)-(d)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)**, (f), or 365(a) or (b)) in applications, which
 have been published as U.S. or WIPO application publications or patented in the
 U.S., may **not** be used as **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** dates
 for prior art purposes. This includes international filing dates claimed as
 foreign priority dates under **[35 U.S.C. 365(a) or (b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307034)**.

**II.** **EXAMPLES**In order to illustrate the prior art dates of U.S. and WIPO
 **publications** of patent applications and U.S. **patents** under
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**, nine examples are presented below. The examples only cover
 the most common factual situations that might be encountered when determining the
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date of a reference. Examples 1 and 2 involve only U.S.
 application publications and U.S. patents. Example 3 involves a priority claim to a
 foreign patent application. Examples 4-9 involve international applications. The
 **time lines** in the examples below show the history of the prior art
 **references** that could be applied against the claims of the application
 under examination, or the patent under reexamination.
 


The examples show only the information necessary to determine a prior
 art date under **[pre-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. Also, the dates in the examples below are
 arbitrary and are presented for illustrative purposes only. Thus, for example,
 correlation of patent grant dates with Tuesdays or application publication dates with
 Thursdays may not be portrayed in the examples. All references to **[35 U.S.C. 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** in
 the examples and flowcharts below are to the version of **[35 U.S.C. 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** in
 effect on March 15, 2013 (the pre-AIA version). 
 





| **Example 1**: Reference Publication and
 Patent of **[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**
 Application with no Priority/Benefit Claims. 
  |
| For reference publications and patents of
 patent applications filed under **[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)** with
 no claim for the benefit of, or priority to, a prior application's filing
 date, the prior art dates under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** accorded to these references are the
 earliest effective U.S. filing dates. Thus, a publication and patent of a
 **[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)** application, which does not claim
 any benefit under either **[35 U.S.C. 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)**,
 **[120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**, **[365(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307053)** or
 **[386(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d225a2_29a9c_1b3)**, would be
 accorded the application’s actual filing date as its prior art date under
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**.
  |


![Example 1: Reference Publication and Patent of 35 U.S.C. 111(a) Application with no Priority/Benefit Claims.](graphics/706_02f1-1.png)The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the Publication is
 08 Dec. 2000. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) date for the Patent is: 08 Dec.
 2000.
 







| **Example 2**: Reference Publication and
 Patent of **[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**
 Application with a Benefit Claim to a Prior U.S. Provisional or
 Nonprovisional Application.
  |
| For reference publications and patents of
 patent applications filed under **[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**, the
 prior art dates under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** accorded to these references are the
 earliest effective U.S. filing dates. A publication and patent of a
 **[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)** application that claims the
 benefit under **[35 U.S.C. 120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)** of a
 prior nonprovisional application would be accorded the earlier filing
 date as its prior art date under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**, provided the earlier-filed nonprovisional
 application has proper support for the subject matter as required by
 **[35 U.S.C. 120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**. A publication and patent of a
 **[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)** application that claims benefit
 under **[35 U.S.C. 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)** to a prior provisional
 application would be accorded the earlier filing date as its prior art
 date under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**, provided that the provisional application
 has proper support for the subject matter as required by
 **[35 U.S.C. 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)** and that at least one claim of
 the reference is supported by the written description of the relied upon
 provisional application in compliance with **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**, first paragraph, or **[35 U.S.C.
 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**. See **[MPEP § 2136.03](s2136.html#d0e205924)**,
 subsection III.
  |


![Example 2: Reference Publication and Patent of 35 U.S.C. 111(a) Application with a Benefit Claim to a Prior U.S. Provisional or Nonprovisional Application](graphics/706_02f1-2.png)The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the Publication is:
 01 Jan. 2000. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) date for the Patent is: 01 Jan.
 2000.
 







| **Example 3**: Reference Publication and
 Patent of **[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**
 Application with **[35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)**
 Priority Claim to a Prior Foreign Application.
  |
| For reference publications and patents of
 patent applications filed under **[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**, the
 prior art dates under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** accorded to these references are the
 earliest effective U.S. filing dates. No benefit of the filing date of
 the foreign application is given under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** for prior art purposes (*In re
 Hilmer*, 149 USPQ 480 (CCPA 1966)). Thus, a publication and
 patent of a **[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**
 application, which claims priority under **[35 U.S.C.
 119(a)-(d)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)** to a prior foreign-filed application (or
 under **[35 U.S.C. 365(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307034)** to an international application),
 would be accorded its U.S. filing date as its prior art date under
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. In the example below, it
 is assumed that the earlier-filed U.S. application has proper support for
 the subject matter of the later-filed U.S. application as required by
 **[35 U.S.C. 120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**.
  |


![Example 3: Reference Publication and Patent of 35 U.S.C. 111(a) Application with 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) Priority Claim to a Prior Foreign Application.](graphics/706_02f1-3.png)The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the Publication is:
 21 June 1999. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) date for the Patent is: 21 June
 1999.
 







| **Example 4**: References based on the **national stage
 (**[35 U.S.C. 371](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307164)**)** of an **International
 Application filed on or after November 29, 2000** and which was
 published in **English** under **[PCT Article
 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)**.
  |
| All references have the **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** prior art date of the international filing
 date or earlier effective U.S. filing date, regardless of whether the
 references are a WIPO publication, a U.S. patent application publication
 or a U.S. patent, of an international application (IA) that was filed on
 or after November 29, 2000, designated the U.S., and was published in
 English under **[PCT Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)** by
 WIPO. No benefit of the international filing date (or of any U.S. filing
 dates prior to the IA), however, is given for **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** prior art purposes if the IA was published
 under **[PCT Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)** in a language other than
 English.
  |


![Example 4: References based on the national stage (35 U.S.C. 371) of an International Application filed on or after November 29, 2000 and which was published in English under PCT Article 21(2).](graphics/706_02f1-4.png)The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the IA Publication
 by WIPO is: 01 Jan. 2001. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the Publication
 by USPTO is: 01 Jan. 2001. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) date for the Patent is:
 01 Jan. 2001.
 







| Additional Benefit Claims:
  |
| If a later-filed U.S.
 nonprovisional (**[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**)
 application claimed the benefit of the IA in the example above, the
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date of the patent or
 publication of the later-filed U.S. application would be the
 international filing date, provided the earlier-filed IA has proper
 support for the subject matter relied upon as required by
 **[35 U.S.C. 120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**.
  |
| If the IA properly claimed the benefit of
 an earlier-filed U.S. nonprovisional (**[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**)
 application, the **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date for all the references would be the
 filing date of the earlier-filed U.S. application, provided the
 earlier-filed application has proper support for the subject matter
 relied upon as required by **[35 U.S.C.
 120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**.
  |
| If the IA properly
 claimed the benefit of an earlier-filed U.S. provisional
 (**[35 U.S.C. 111(b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#pltd0e302719ala)**)
 application, the **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date would be the filing date of the
 provisional application provided that the provisional application has
 proper support for the subject matter as required by **[35 U.S.C.
 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)** and that at least one claim of the IA is
 supported by the written description of the relied upon provisional
 application in compliance with **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**, first paragraph, or **[35 U.S.C.
 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**. See **[MPEP § 2136.03](s2136.html#d0e205924)**,
 subsection III.
  |




| **Example 5**: References based on the **national stage
 (**[35 U.S.C. 371](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307164)**)** of an **International
 Application filed on or after November 29, 2000** and which was
 **not** published in **English** under
 **[PCT
 Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)**.
  |
| All references, whether the WIPO publication, the U.S.
 patent application publication or the U.S. patent, of an international
 application (IA) that was filed on or after November 29, 2000, but was
 **not** published in **English** under
 **[PCT Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)** have no **[35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** prior art date at all. According to
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**, no benefit of the
 international filing date (or of any U.S. filing dates prior to the
 IA) is given for **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** prior art purposes if the IA was
 published under **[PCT Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)**
 in a language other than English, regardless of whether the
 international application entered the national stage. Such references
 may be applied under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or
 (b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of their publication dates, but never
 under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**.
  |


![Example 5: References based on the national stage (35 U.S.C. 371) of an International Application filed on or after November 29, 2000 and which was not published in English under PCT Article 21(2).](graphics/706_02f1-5.png)The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the IA Publication
 by WIPO is: None. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the Publication by
 USPTO is: None. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) date for the Patent is:
 None.
 





| The IA publication by WIPO can
 be applied under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or
 (b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of its publication date (01 July
 2002).
  |
| Additional Benefit Claims:
  |
| If the IA properly claimed the
 benefit of any earlier-filed U.S. application (whether provisional or
 nonprovisional), there would still be no **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date for all the references.
  |
| If a later-filed U.S. nonprovisional
 (**[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**) application claimed the benefit
 of the IA in the example above, the **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date of the patent or publication of the
 later-filed U.S. application would be the actual filing date of the
 later-filed U.S. application.
  |






| **Example 6**: References based on the national stage (****[35 U.S.C. 371](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307164)****) of an **International Application filed prior to November
 29, 2000** (language of the publication under **[PCT Article
 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)** is not relevant).
  |
| The reference U.S. patent issued from an
 international application (IA) that was filed prior to November 29, 2000,
 has a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** prior art date of the
 date of fulfillment of the requirements of **[35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1),
 (2) and (4)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307164)**. This is the former pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e). The application publications, both the WIPO publication and the
 U.S. publication, published from an international application that was
 filed prior to November 29, 2000, do not have any **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** prior art date. According to the effective
 date provisions as amended by Public Law 107-273, the amendments to
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** and **[374](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307311)**
 are not applicable to international applications having international
 filing dates prior to November 29, 2000. The application publications can
 be applied under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or
 (b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of their publication dates.
  |


![Example 6: References based on the national stage (35 U.S.C. 371) of an International Application filed prior to November 29, 2000 (language of the publication under PCT Article 21(2) is not relevant).](graphics/706_02f1-6.png)The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the IA Publication
 by WIPO is: None. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the Publication by
 USPTO is: None. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date for the Patent is: 01 July
 2002.
 





| The IA publication by WIPO can
 be applied under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** or (b) as of its publication date (01 July
 2001).
  |
| Additional Benefit Claims:
  |
| If the IA properly claimed the
 benefit of any earlier-filed U.S. application (whether provisional or
 nonprovisional), there would still be no **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)(1)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date for the U.S. and WIPO application
 publications, and the **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date for the patent will still be 01 July
 2002 (the date of fulfillment of the requirements under **[35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1),
 (2) and (4)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307164)**).
  |
| If a later-filed U.S.
 nonprovisional (**[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**)
 application claimed the benefit of the IA in the example above, the
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date of the
 application publication of the later-filed U.S. application would be the
 actual filing date of the later-filed U.S. application, and the
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date of the patent of the
 later-filed U.S. application would be 01 July 2002 (the date that the
 earlier-filed IA fulfilled the requirements of **[35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1),
 (2) and (4)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307164)**).
  |
| If the patent was based on a later-filed
 U.S. application that claimed the benefit of the international
 application and the later filed U.S. application’s filing date is before
 the date the requirements of **[35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and
 (4)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307164)** were fulfilled (if fulfilled at all), the
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date of the patent would
 be the filing date of the later-filed U.S. application that claimed the
 benefit of the international application.
  |






| **Example 7**: References based on a **[35 U.S.C.
 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)** Application which is a **Continuation of
 an International Application**, which was filed on or after
 **November 29, 2000, designated the U.S.** and was
 **published in English** under **[PCT Article
 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)**.
  |
| All references, whether the WIPO
 publication, the U.S. patent application publication or the U.S. patent,
 of or claiming the benefit of, an international application (IA) that was
 filed on or after November 29, 2000, designated the U.S., and was
 published in English under **[PCT Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)**
 have the  **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** prior art date of the international filing
 date or earlier effective U.S. filing date. No benefit of the
 international filing date (or of any U.S. filing dates prior to the IA),
 however, is given for **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** purposes if the IA was published under
 **[PCT
 Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)** by WIPO in a language other than
 English. In the example below, it is assumed that the earlier-filed IA
 has proper support for the subject matter of the later-filed U.S.
 application as required by **[35 U.S.C. 120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)** and
 **[365(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307034)**.
  |


![Example 7: References based on a 35 U.S.C. 111(a) Application which is a Continuation of an International Application, which was filed on or after November 29, 2000, designated the U.S. and was published in English under PCT Article 21(2).](graphics/706_02f1-7.png)The pre-AIA35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the IA Publication
 by WIPO is: 01 Mar. 2001. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the Publication
 by USPTO is: 01 Mar. 2001. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) date for the Patent is:
 01 Mar. 2001.
 





| Additional Benefit Claims:
  |
| If the IA properly claimed the
 benefit of an earlier-filed U.S. nonprovisional (**[35 U.S.C.
 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**) application, the **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date for all the references would be the
 filing date of the earlier-filed U.S. application, provided the
 earlier-filed application has proper support for the subject matter
 relied upon as required by **[35 U.S.C.
 120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**.
  |
| If the IA properly claimed the
 benefit of an earlier-filed U.S. provisional (**[35 U.S.C.
 111(b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#pltd0e302719ala)**) application, the **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date for all the references would be the
 filing date of the earlier-filed U.S. application provided that the
 provisional application has proper support for the subject matter as
 required by **[35 U.S.C. 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)** and
 that at least one claim of the IA is supported by the written description
 of the relied upon provisional application in compliance with
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**, first paragraph, or **[35 U.S.C.
 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**. See **[MPEP § 2136.03](s2136.html#d0e205924)**,
 subsection III.
  |
| If a second, later-filed U.S.
 nonprovisional (**[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**)
 application claimed the benefit of the **[35 U.S.C.
 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)** application in the example above, the
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date of the patent or
 publication of the second, later-filed U.S. application would still be
 the international filing date of the IA, provided the earlier-filed IA
 has proper support for the subject matter relied upon as required by
 **[35 U.S.C. 120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)** and **[365(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307053)**.
  |






| **Example 8**: References based on a **[35 U.S.C.
 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)** Application which is a **Continuation of
 an International Application**, which was **filed on or after
 November 29, 2000** and was **not published in English**
 under **[PCT Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)**.
  |
| Both the U.S. publication and the U.S.
 patent of the **[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**
 continuation of an international application (IA) that was filed on or
 after November 29, 2000 but **not** published in English under
 **[PCT
 Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)** have the **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** prior art date of the actual U.S. filing
 date of the **[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**
 application. No benefit of the international filing date (or of any U.S.
 filing dates prior to the IA) is given for **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** purposes because the IA was published under
 **[PCT
 Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)** in a language other than English. The
 IA publication under **[PCT Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)**
 does not have a prior art date under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)(1)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** because the IA was not published in
 English under **[PCT Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)**.
 The IA publication under **[PCT Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)** can
 be applied under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or
 (b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of its publication date.
  |


![Example 8: References based on a 35 U.S.C. 111(a) Application which is a Continuation of an International Application, which was filed on or after November 29, 2000 and was not published in English under PCT Article 21(2).](graphics/706_02f1-8.png)The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the IA Publication
 by WIPO is: None. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the Publication by
 USPTO is: 01 May 2003. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) date for the Patent is: 01
 May 2003
 





| The IA publication by WIPO can
 be applied under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or
 (b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of its publication date (01 Sept
 2002).
  |
| Additional Benefit Claims:
  |
| If the IA properly claimed the
 benefit of any earlier-filed U.S. application (whether provisional or
 nonprovisional), there would still be no**[pre-AIA35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date for the IA
 publication by WIPO, and the U.S. patent application publication and
 patent would still have a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date of the actual filing date of the
 later-filed **[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**
 application in the example above (01 May 2003).
  |
| If a second, later-filed U.S.
 nonprovisional (**[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**)
 application claimed the benefit of the **[35 U.S.C.
 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)** application in the example above, the
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date of the patent or
 publication of the second, later-filed U.S. application would still be
 the actual filing date of the **[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**
 application in the example above (01 May 2003).
  |






| **Example 9**: References based on a **[35 U.S.C.
 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)** Application which is a
 **Continuation** (filed prior to any entry of the national
 stage) **of an International Application**, which was
 **filed prior to November 29, 2000** (language of the
 publication under **[PCT Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)** is
 not relevant).
  |
| Both the U.S. publication and the U.S.
 patent of the **[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**
 continuation (filed prior to any entry of the national stage) of an
 international application (IA) that was filed prior to November 29, 2000,
 have the  **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** prior art date of their actual U.S. filing
 date under **[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**. No
 benefit of the international filing date (or of any U.S. filing dates
 prior to the IA) is given for **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** prior art purposes since the IA was filed
 prior to November 29, 2000. The IA publication under **[PCT Article
 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)** does not have a prior art date under
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** because the IA was
 filed prior to November 29, 2000. The IA publication under
 **[PCT
 Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)** can be applied under
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of its
 publication date.
  |


![Example 9: References based on a 35 U.S.C. 111(a) Application which is a Continuation (filed prior to any entry of the national stage) of an International Application, which was filed prior to November 29, 2000 (language of the publication under PCT Article 21(2) is not relevant).](graphics/706_02f1-9.png)The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the IA Publication
 by WIPO is: None. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the Publication by
 USPTO is: 01 Dec. 2000. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) date for the Patent is: 01
 Dec. 2000.
 





| The IA publication by WIPO can
 be applied under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** or (b) as of its publication date (01 Sept
 2000).
  |
| Additional Benefit Claims:
  |
| If the IA properly claimed the
 benefit of any earlier-filed U.S. application (whether provisional or
 nonprovisional), there would still be no**[pre-AIA35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date for the IA
 publication by WIPO, and the U.S. application publication and patent
 would still have a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date of the actual filing date of the
 later-filed **[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**
 application in the example above (01 Dec 2000).
  |
| If a second, later-filed U.S.
 nonprovisional (**[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**)
 application claimed the benefit of the **[35 U.S.C.
 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)** application in the example above, the
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date of the patent or
 publication of the second, later-filed U.S. application would still be
 the actual filing date of the **[35 U.S.C. 111(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302673)**
 application in the example above (01 Dec 2000).
  |


**III.** **FLOWCHARTS**The following flowcharts provide guidance for
 determining the **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date, if any, for a U.S. patent, U.S.
 patent application publication, or international application publication. Note that for
 benefit claims under **[35 U.S.C. 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)**, the critical reference date under
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** may be the filing date of a relied upon provisional
 application **only** if at least one of the claims in the reference patent,
 patent application publication, or international application publication is supported by
 the written description of the provisional application in compliance with
 **[pre-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**, first paragraph, or **[35 U.S.C.
 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**. See **[MPEP § 2136.03](s2136.html#d0e205924)**, subsection III.
 


![Flowchart for 35 U.S.C. 102(e) Dates. Chart I: For U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication under 35 U.S.C. § 122(b) (includes publication of § 371 applications)](graphics/706_02f1-flwcht-1.png)
![Flowchart for 35 U.S.C. 102(e) Dates. Chart II: For WIPO publication of International Applications (IAs)](graphics/706_02f1-flwcht-2.png)

# 2136.01 Status of Unpublished or Published as Redacted U.S. Application
 as a Reference Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) [R-10.2019]


*[Editor Note: This MPEP section is **not applicable** to applications
 subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA
 as set forth in **[35 U.S.C. 100 (note)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d917_1bef1_2b)**. See
 **[MPEP
 § 2159](s2159.html#ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd)** et seq. to determine whether an application is
 subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and **[MPEP §
 2150](s2150.html#ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e)** et seq. for examination of applications subject to
 those provisions.]*


If an earlier filed, copending, and unpublished U.S. patent
 application discloses subject matter which would anticipate the claims in a later filed
 pending U.S. application which has a different inventive entity, the examiner should
 determine whether a provisional rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** of the
 later filed application can be made. In addition, a provisional rejection under
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** may be made, in certain circumstances as described below,
 if the earlier filed, pending application has been published as redacted
 (**[37 CFR
 1.217](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e325410)**) and the subject matter relied upon in the rejection is not
 supported in the redacted publication of the patent application.
 

**I.** **WHEN THERE IS NO COMMON ASSIGNEE, APPLICANT, OR INVENTOR, A U.S. APPLICATION
 MUST ISSUE AS A PATENT OR BE PUBLISHED AS A SIR OR AS AN APPLICATION PUBLICATION
 BEFORE IT IS AVAILABLE AS PRIOR ART UNDER Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)** In addition to U.S. patents and SIRs, certain U.S. application
 publications and certain international application publications are also available as
 prior art under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of their effective U.S. filing
 dates (which will include certain international filing dates). 
 


If there is no common assignee, common applicant, or common
 inventor and the application was not published pursuant to **[35 U.S.C.
 122(b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303054)**, the confidential status of applications under
 **[35 U.S.C.
 122(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303054)** must be maintained and no rejection can be made relying
 on the earlier filed, unpublished application, or subject matter not supported in a
 redacted application publication, as prior art under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. For applications subject to **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(g)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302424)**, if the filing dates of the applications are within
 6 months of each other (3 months for simple subject matter) then interference may be
 proper. See **[MPEP
 Chapter 2300](mpep-2300.html#d0e237627)**. If the application with the earliest
 effective U.S. filing date will not be published pursuant to **[35 U.S.C.
 122(b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303054)**, it must be allowed to issue once all the statutory
 requirements are met. After the patent has issued, it may be used as a reference in a
 rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** in the still pending application as
 appropriate. See **[MPEP
 § 2136](s2136.html#d0e205544)***et seq.*

**II.** **WHEN THERE IS A COMMON ASSIGNEE, APPLICANT, OR INVENTOR, A PROVISIONAL PRE-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 102(e) REJECTION OVER AN EARLIER FILED UNPUBLISHED APPLICATION CAN BE
 MADE**Based on the assumption that an application will ripen into a U.S.
 patent (or into an application publication), it is permissible to provisionally
 reject a later application over an earlier filed, and unpublished, application under
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** when there is a common assignee, applicant, or
 inventor. See, e.g., *In re Irish,* 433 F.2d 1342, 167 USPQ 764
 (CCPA 1970). In addition, a provisional **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**
 rejection may be made if the earlier filed copending U.S. application has been
 published as redacted (**[37 CFR 1.217](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e325410)**) and the subject
 matter relied upon in the rejection is not supported in the redacted publication of
 the patent application. Such a provisional rejection "serves to put applicant on
 notice at the earliest possible time of the possible prior art relationship between
 copending applications" and gives applicant the fullest opportunity to overcome the
 rejection by amendment or submission of evidence. In addition, since both
 applications are pending and usually have the same assignee, more options are
 available to applicant for overcoming the provisional rejection than if the other
 application were already issued. *Ex parte Bartfeld,* 16 USPQ2d 1714
 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990) *aff’d on other grounds,* 925 F.2d
 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Note that provisional rejections over
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** are only authorized when there is a common
 inventor or assignee, otherwise the copending application prior to publication must
 remain confidential.
 


Therefore, if (1) at least one common inventor or applicant
 exists between the applications or the applications are commonly assigned, and (2)
 the effective filing dates are different; then a provisional rejection of the
 later-filed application should be made. The provisional rejection is appropriate in
 circumstances where, if the earlier-filed application is published or becomes a
 patent, it would constitute actual prior art under **[35 U.S.C. 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**.
 Because the earlier-filed application is not published at the time of the rejection,
 the rejection must be provisionally made under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**.
 


A provisional rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** can be overcome in the same manner that a
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** rejection can be overcome. See
 **[MPEP §
 2136.05](s2136.html#d0e206333)**. The provisional rejection can
 also be overcome by abandoning the applications and filing a new
 application containing the subject matter of both. Form paragraph
 **[7.15.01.fti](#fp7.15.01.fti)** should be used when making a provisional
 rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)**.
 

**III.** **PROVISIONAL REJECTION UNDER PRE-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 103(a) CAN BE MADE USING PRIOR ART UNDER PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)**For applications filed on or after November 29, 1999 or pending on
 or after December 10, 2004, a provisional rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 103(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)** using prior art under  **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** is not proper if the application contains evidence that
 the application and the prior art reference were owned by the same person, or subject
 to an obligation of assignment to the same person, at the time the invention was
 made. See **[pre-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 103(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302521)**. 
 


In addition, certain non-commonly owned references may be
 disqualified from being applied in a rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 103(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)** due to the Cooperative Research and Technology
 Enhancement Act of 2004 (CREATE Act) (Public Law 108-453; 118 Stat. 3596 (2004)),
 which was enacted on December 10, 2004 and was effective for all patents granted on
 or after December 10, 2004. 
 


See **[MPEP §§ 2146](s2146.html#d0e213206)**-**[2146.03](s2146.html#ch2100_d2c184_127cc_34b)** for information pertaining to prior art
 disqualified under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302521)**, evidence of common ownership, and
 examination procedure with respect to **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302521)**; see
 **[MPEP
 § 2146.03(a)](s2146.html#ch2100_d2c184_12851_21a)** for a discussion of provisional rejections
 under **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 103(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)** using provisional prior art under
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**.
 


**[Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.103(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)**, as
 amended by the CREATE Act, continues to apply only to subject matter which qualifies
 as prior art under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**, and which is being
 relied upon in a rejection under **[35 U.S.C. 103](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)**. It does not apply
 to or affect subject matter which is applied in a rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** or a double patenting rejection (see **[37 CFR
 1.78(c)](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e320662)** and **[MPEP § 804](s804.html#d0e98894)**). In addition, if the
 subject matter qualifies as prior art under any other subsection of **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** (e.g., **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**)
 it will not be disqualified as prior art under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)**. See
 also **[MPEP §
 2146](s2146.html#d0e213206)***et seq.* for information relating to rejections under
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 103](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)** and evidence of joint research agreements.
 




# 2136.02 Content of the Prior Art Available Against the Claims [R-10.2019]


*Editor Note: This MPEP section is **not applicable** to applications
 subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA
 as set forth in **[35 U.S.C. 100 (note)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d917_1bef1_2b)**. See
 **[MPEP
 § 2159](s2159.html#ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd)** et seq. to determine whether an application is
 subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and **[MPEP §
 2150](s2150.html#ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e)** et seq. for examination of applications subject to
 those provisions.]*

**I.** **A 35 U.S.C. 102(e) REJECTION MAY RELY ON ANY PART OF THE PATENT OR APPLICATION
 PUBLICATION DISCLOSURE** Under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**, the
 entire disclosure of a U.S. patent, a U.S. patent application publication, or an
 international application publication having an earlier effective U.S. filing date
 (which will include certain international filing dates) can be relied on to reject
 the claims. *Sun Studs, Inc. v. ATA Equip. Leasing, Inc.,* 872 F.2d
 978, 983, 10 USPQ2d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See **[MPEP §
 2120.01](s2120.html#ch2100_d2c183_20d9a_21c)**.
 

**II.** **REFERENCE MUST ITSELF CONTAIN THE SUBJECT MATTER RELIED ON IN THE
 REJECTION**When a U.S. patent, a U.S. patent application publication, or an
 international application publication is used to reject claims under
 **[pre-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**, the disclosure relied on in the rejection
 must be present in the issued patent or application publication. It is the earliest
 effective U.S. filing date (which will include certain international filing dates) of
 the U.S. patent or application publication being relied on as the critical reference
 date and subject matter not included in the patent or application publication itself
 can only be used when that subject matter becomes public. Portions of the patent
 application which were canceled are not part of the patent or application publication
 and thus cannot be relied on in a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**
 rejection over the issued patent or application publication. *Ex parte
 Stalego,* 154 USPQ 52 (Bd. App. 1966). Similarly, subject matter that is
 disclosed in an abandoned, unpublished parent application but was not carried over
 into the child patent or application publication may not be relied on as prior art
 under **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)**. *In re Klesper,* 397 F.2d 882,
 886, 158 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1968). See **[MPEP § 901.02](s901.html#d0e110072)** for more information
 on availability of abandoned applications as prior art. Likewise, subject matter
 which is disclosed in a parent application, but not included in the child
 continuation-in-part (CIP) cannot be relied on in a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection over the issued or published CIP. *In
 re Lund,* 376 F.2d 982, 153 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1967) (The examiner made a
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection over an issued U.S. patent which was a
 continuation-in-part (CIP). The parent application of the U.S. patent reference
 contained an example II which was not carried over to the CIP. The court held that
 the subject matter embodied in the canceled example II could not be relied on as of
 either parent or child filing date. Thus, the use of example II subject matter to
 reject the claims under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** was
 improper.).
 


Where a U.S. patent claims benefit to a provisional
 application, at least one claim of the patent must be supported by the disclosure of
 the relied upon provisional application in compliance with**[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first
 paragraph](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, in order for the patent to be usable as prior art
 under **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of the relied upon provisional application’s
 filing date. See **[MPEP
 § 2136.03](s2136.html#d0e205924)**, subsection III.
 

**III.** **THE SUPREME COURT HAS AUTHORIZED 35 U.S.C. 103 REJECTIONS BASED ON PRE-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)**U.S. patents may be used as of their filing dates to show that the
 claimed subject matter is anticipated or obvious. Obviousness can be shown by
 combining other prior art with the U.S. patent reference in a **[35 U.S.C. 103](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)**
 rejection. *Hazeltine Research v. Brenner,* 382 U.S. 252, 147 USPQ
 429 (1965). Similarly, certain U.S. application publications and certain
 international application publications may also be used as of their earliest
 effective U.S. filing dates (which will include certain international filing dates)
 to show that the claimed subject matter would have been anticipated or obvious. 
 


See **[MPEP § 2146](s2146.html#d0e213206)***et seq.* for additional information on rejections under
 **[35 U.S.C.
 103](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)** and evidence of common ownership or a joint research
 agreement. 
 




# 2136.03 Critical Reference Date [R-10.2019]


*[Editor Note: This MPEP section is **not applicable** to applications
 subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA
 as set forth in **[35 U.S.C. 100 (note)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d917_1bef1_2b)**. See
 **[MPEP
 § 2159](s2159.html#ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd)** et seq. to determine whether an application is
 subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and **[MPEP §
 2150](s2150.html#ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e)** et seq. for examination of applications subject to
 those provisions.]*

**I.** **FOREIGN PRIORITY DATE*** 

***Reference’s Foreign Priority Date Under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f)
 Cannot Be Used as the Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) Reference Date*****[Pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** is explicitly limited to certain references
 "filed in the United States before the invention thereof by
 the applicant" (emphasis added). Foreign applications’ filing dates that are
 claimed (via **[35
 U.S.C. 119(a)–(d), (f)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)** or **[35 U.S.C.
 365(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307034)**) in applications, which have been published as U.S.
 or WIPO application publications or patented in the U.S., may
 not be used as **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** dates
 for prior art purposes. This includes international filing dates claimed as
 foreign priority dates under **[35 U.S.C. 365(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307034)**.Therefore,
 the foreign priority date of the reference under **[35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d),
 (f)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)**, and **[35 U.S.C. 365(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307034)** cannot be
 used to antedate the application filing date. In contrast, applicant may be able
 to overcome the **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection by proving the applicant
 is entitled to the **[35 U.S.C. 119](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)** priority date
 which is earlier than the reference’s U.S. filing date. *In re
 Hilmer,* 359 F.2d 859, 149 USPQ 480 (CCPA 1966) *(Hilmer
 I*) (Applicant filed an application with a right of priority to a
 German application. The examiner rejected the claims over a U.S. patent to Habicht
 based on its Swiss priority date. The U.S. filing date of Habicht was later than
 the application’s German priority date. The court held that the reference’s Swiss
 priority date could not be relied on in a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**
 rejection. Because the U.S. filing date of Habicht was later than the German
 priority date of the application, the rejection was reversed.). See
 **[MPEP
 § 216](s216.html#ch200_d1ff72_27189_3b)** for information on procedures to be followed in
 considering applicant's right of priority. 
 


Note that certain international application (PCT) filings are
 considered to be "filings in the United States" for purposes of applying an
 application publication as prior art. See **[MPEP §
 2120.01](s2120.html#ch2100_d2c183_20d9a_21c)**.
 

**II.** **INTERNATIONAL (PCT) APPLICATIONS; INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION
 PUBLICATIONS*** 

***A.******International Application Filed On or After November 29,
 2000***If the potential reference resulted from, or claimed the benefit
 of, an international application, the following must be determined:
 


* (A) If the international application meets the following three
 conditions:
	+ (1) an international filing date on or after November 29,
	 2000;
	+ (2) designated the United States; and
	+ (3) published under **[PCT Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)**
	 in English,


the international filing date is a U.S. filing date for
 prior art purposes under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. If such an international application properly
 claims benefit to an earlier-filed U.S. or international application, apply
 the reference under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**
 as of the earlier filing date, provided all the conditions of
 **[pre-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** and **[35 U.S.C.
 120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)** or **[365(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307034)** are met. In
 addition, the subject matter relied upon in the rejection must be disclosed
 in the earlier-filed application in compliance with **[35 U.S.C.
 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)** /**[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**,
 first paragraph, in order to give that subject matter the benefit of the
 earlier filing date under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**.
 


If such an international application
 properly claims benefit to an earlier-filed U.S. provisional application,
 apply the reference under**[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**
 as of the earlier filing date, provided that the provisional application has
 proper support for the subject matter as required by **[35 U.S.C.
 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302951)** and that at least one claim of the
 international application is supported by the written description of the
 relied upon provisional application in compliance with **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first paragraph or **[35 U.S.C.
 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**. See **[MPEP § 2136.03](s2136.html#d0e205924)**, subsection
 III.
 


Note: where the earlier application is an
 international application, the earlier international application must
 satisfy the same three conditions (i.e., filed on or after November 29,
 2000, designated the U.S., and published in English under **[PCT Article
 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)**) for the earlier international filing date to be
 the U.S. filing date for prior art purposes under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**.
* (B) If the international application was filed on or after
 November 29, 2000, but did **not** designate the United States or
 was **not** published in English under **[PCT Article
 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)**, do **not** treat the international
 filing date as a U.S. filing date. In this situation, do **not**
 apply the reference as of its international filing date, its date of
 completion of the **[35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and
 (4)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307164)** requirements, or any earlier filing date to which
 such an international application claims benefit or priority. The reference
 may be applied under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or
 (b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of its publication date, or **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of any later U.S. filing date of an
 application that properly claimed the benefit of the international
 application (if applicable).

***B.******International Application Filed Before November 29, 2000***References based on international applications that
 were filed prior to November 29, 2000 are subject to the pre-AIPA version of 35
 U.S.C. 102(e) (i.e., the version in force on November 28, 2000) as set forth
 below.
 



#### *Former 35 U.S.C. 102  
 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent (as
 in force on November 28, 2000)*


A person shall be entitled to a patent
 unless-
 


\*\*\*\*\*


* (e) the invention was described in a patent
 granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United
 States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or on an
 international application by another who has fulfilled the requirements
 of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of **[section 371(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307183)** of
 this title before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.


\*\*\*\*\*



If an international application has an
 international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, the reference should be
 applied under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 374 as in force on November 28,
 2000 (prior to the AIPA amendments): 
 


* (1) For U.S. patents, apply the reference under 35
 U.S.C. 102(e) as in force on November 28, 2000 as of the earlier of the date
 of completion of the requirements of **[35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and
 (4)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307183)** or the filing date of the later-filed U.S.
 application that claimed the benefit of the international application;
* (2) For U.S. application publications and WIPO
 publications directly resulting from international applications under
 **[PCT
 Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363634)**, never apply these references under 35
 U.S.C. 102(e) as in force on November 28, 2000. These references may be
 applied as of their publication dates under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)
 or (b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**;
* (3) For U.S. application publications of
 applications that claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 365(c) of an
 international application filed prior to November 29, 2000, apply the
 reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as in force on November 28, 2000 as of the
 actual filing date of the later-filed U.S. application that claimed the
 benefit of the international application.


Examiners should be aware that although a publication of, or a
 U.S. patent issued from, an international application may not be available as
 prior art under former 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as in force on November 28, 2000 or under
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)**, the corresponding WIPO publication of an
 international application may have an earlier  **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or
 (b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date.
 

**III.** **BENEFIT OF PROVISIONAL APPLICATION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 119(e)**The critical reference date under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** of a U.S. patent, a U.S. patent application publication,
 as well as an international application publication having prior art effect under
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**, may be the filing date of a relied upon
 provisional application only if at least one of the claims in the reference patent,
 patent application publication, or international application publication is supported
 by the written description of the provisional application in compliance with
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first paragraph, or **[35 U.S.C.
 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**. See *Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi,* 872 F.3d
 1367, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2017); *Dynamic Drinkware, LLC, v. National Graphics,
 Inc.,* 800 F.3d 1375, 116 USPQ2d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The provisional
 application must also describe, in compliance with **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first paragraph, or **[35 U.S.C.
 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**, the subject matter relied upon in the reference patent
 or publication to make the rejection. See **[MPEP § 2136](s2136.html#d0e205544)**, examples 2, 4, and
 7.
 


 Note that international applications which (1) were
 filed prior to November 29, 2000, or (2) did not designate the U.S., or (3) were not
 published in English under **[PCT Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)** by WIPO, may
 not be used to reach back (bridge) to an earlier filing date through a priority or
 benefit claim for prior art purposes under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. 
 

**IV.** **BENEFIT OF NONPROVISIONAL APPLICATION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 120*** 

***Filing Date of U.S. Parent Application Can Only Be Used as the Pre-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 102(e) Date If It Supports the Subject Matter Relied Upon in the
 Continuing Application***For prior art purposes, a U.S. patent or patent application
 publication that claims the benefit of an earlier filing date under
 **[35 U.S.C.
 120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)** of a prior nonprovisional application (i.e., a
 continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application) would be accorded
 the earlier filing date as its prior art date under **[pre-AIA  35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**, provided the earlier-filed application properly
 supports the subject matter relied upon in any rejection in compliance with
 **[35
 U.S.C. 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)** or **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.  112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first
 paragraph. In other words, the subject matter used in the rejection must be
 disclosed in the earlier-filed application in compliance with **[35 U.S.C.
 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)** or **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first
 paragraph, in order for that subject matter to be entitled to the earlier filing
 date under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**.
 


See also **[MPEP § 2136](s2136.html#d0e205544)**, examples 2 and 5 to
 9.
 

**V.** **DATE OF CONCEPTION OR REDUCTION TO PRACTICE*** 

***Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) Reference Date Is the Filing Date, Not Date
 of Inventor’s Conception or Reduction to Practice*** If a reference available under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** discloses, but does not claim the subject matter of
 the claims being examined or an obvious variant, the reference is not prior art
 under **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(g)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. Furthermore, the reference does not qualify
 as "prior art" under **[35 U.S.C. 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of a date
 earlier than its filing date based upon any prior inventive activity that is
 disclosed in the U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication in the absence
 of evidence that the subject matter was actually reduced to practice in this
 country on an earlier date. See **[MPEP § 2138](s2138.html#d0e207005)**. When the cases are
 not in interference, the effective date of the reference as prior art is its
 filing date in the United States (which will include certain international filing
 dates), as stated in **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. See
 **[MPEP §§ 2120.01](s2120.html#ch2100_d2c183_20d9a_21c)** and**[2136](s2136.html#d0e205544)**. The date
 that the prior art subject matter was conceived or reduced to practice is of no
 importance when **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** is not at issue. *Sun
 Studs, Inc. v. ATA Equip. Leasing, Inc.,* 872 F.2d 978, 983, 10 USPQ2d
 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (The defendant sought to invalidate patents issued to
 Mason and Sohn assigned to Sun Studs. The earliest of these patents issued in June
 1973. A U.S. patent to Mouat was found which issued in March 1976 and which
 disclosed the invention of Mason and Sohn. While the patent to Mouat issued after
 the Mason and Sohn patents, it was filed 7 months earlier than the earliest of the
 Mason and Sohn patents. Sun Studs submitted affidavits showing conception in 1969
 and diligence to the constructive reduction to practice and therefore antedated
 the patent to Mouat. The defendant sought to show that Mouat conceived the
 invention in 1966. The court held that conception of the subject matter of the
 reference only becomes an issue when the claims of the
 conflicting patents cover inventions which are the same or obvious over one
 another. When **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** applies but not **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(g)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**, the filing date of the prior art patent is the
 earliest date that can be used to reject or invalidate claims.).
 




# 2136.04 Different Inventive Entity; Meaning of "By Another" [R-10.2019]


*[Editor Note: This MPEP section is **not applicable** to applications
 subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA
 as set forth in **[35 U.S.C. 100 (note)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d917_1bef1_2b)**. See
 **[MPEP
 § 2159](s2159.html#ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd)** et seq. to determine whether an application is
 subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and **[MPEP §
 2150](s2150.html#ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e)** et seq. for examination of applications subject to
 those provisions.]*

**I.** **IF THERE IS ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE INVENTIVE ENTITY, THE REFERENCE IS "BY
 ANOTHER"**"Another" means other than applicants, *In re
 Land,* 368 F.2d 866, 151 USPQ 621 (CCPA 1966), in other words, a
 different inventive entity. The inventive entity is different if not all inventors
 are the same. The fact that the application and reference have one or more inventors
 in common is immaterial. *Ex parte DesOrmeaux,* 25 USPQ2d 2040 (Bd.
 Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (The examiner made a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**
 rejection based on an issued U.S. patent to three inventors. The rejected application
 was a continuation-in-part of the issued parent with an extra inventor. The Board
 found that the patent was "by another" and thus could be used in a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**/**[103](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302455)** rejection of the
 application.).
 

**II.** **A DIFFERENT INVENTIVE ENTITY IS *PRIMA FACIE* EVIDENCE THAT
 THE REFERENCE IS "BY ANOTHER"** As stated by the House and Senate reports on the bills enacting
 section **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as part of the 1952 Patent Act, this subsection
 of 102 codifies the Milburn rule of *Milburn v. Davis-Bournonville,*
 270 U.S. 390, 1926 C.D. 303, 344 O.G. 817 (1926). The Milburn rule authorized the use
 of a U.S. patent containing a disclosure of the invention as a reference against a
 later filed application as of the U.S. patent filing date. The existence of an
 earlier filed U.S. application containing the subject matter claimed in the
 application being examined indicates that applicant was not the first inventor.
 Therefore, a U.S. patent, a U.S. patent application publication or international
 application publication, by a different inventive entity, whether or not the
 application shares some inventors in common with the patent, is *prima
 facie* evidence that the invention was made "by another" as set forth in
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. *In re Mathews,* 408 F.2d 1393,
 161 USPQ 276 (CCPA 1969); *In re Facius,* 408 F.2d 1396, 161 USPQ
 294 (CCPA 1969); *Ex parte DesOrmeaux,* 25 USPQ2d 2040 (Bd. Pat.
 App. & Inter. 1992). See **[MPEP § 2136.05](s2136.html#d0e206333)***et seq.* for discussion of methods of overcoming **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejections.
 




# 2136.05 Overcoming a Rejection Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) [R-10.2019]


*[Editor Note: This MPEP section is **not applicable** to applications
 subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA
 as set forth in **[35 U.S.C. 100 (note)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d917_1bef1_2b)**. See
 **[MPEP
 § 2159](s2159.html#ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd)** et seq. to determine whether an application is
 subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and **[MPEP §
 2150](s2150.html#ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e)** et seq. for examination of applications subject to
 those provisions. Information pertaining to overcoming **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejections has been moved to **[MPEP §
 2136.05(a)](s2136.html#ch2100_d2c183_21160_34b)** for affidavits or declarations under
 **[37 CFR
 1.131](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** and benefit or priority claims, and to
 **[MPEP §
 2136.05(b)](s2136.html#ch2100_d2c183_211c7_5e)** for affidavits or declarations under
 **[37 CFR
 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)**.]*


In all applications, an applicant may overcome a
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection by persuasively arguing that the claims are
 patentably distinguishable from the prior art, or by amending the claims to patentably
 distinguish over the prior art. Additional ways available to overcome a rejection based
 on **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** prior art depend on the applicable paragraph of
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. See **[MPEP § 2132.01](s2132.html#d0e203530)** for overcoming a
 rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** and **[MPEP §
 2133.02(a)](s2133.html#ch2100_d2c183_21092_1c6)** for overcoming a rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_11e7d_156)**. 
 


A rejection based on **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** can be
 overcome by:
 


* (A) Persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably
 distinguishable from the prior art;
* (B) Amending the claims to patentably distinguish over
 the prior art;
* (C) Filing an affidavit or declaration under
 **[37 CFR
 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)** showing that the reference invention is not by
 "another." See **[MPEP
 §§ 715.01(a)](s715.html#d0e90674)**, **[715.01(c)](s715.html#d0e90779)**, **[716.10](s716.html#d0e93797)**, and
 **[2136.05(b)](s2136.html#ch2100_d2c183_211c7_5e)**;
* (D) Filing an affidavit or declaration under
 **[37 CFR
 1.131(a)](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** showing prior invention, if the reference is not a
 U.S. patent or a U.S. patent application publication claiming interfering subject
 matter as defined in **[37 CFR 41.203(a)](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e359662)** (subject
 matter of a claim of one party would, if prior art, have anticipated or rendered
 obvious the subject matter of a claim of the opposing party and vice versa). See
 **[MPEP §§
 715](s715.html#d0e89737)** and **[2136.05(b)](s2136.html#ch2100_d2c183_211c7_5e)**for more information on **[37 CFR
 1.131(a)](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** affidavits;
* (E) Submitting and perfecting a claim to priority under
 **[35 U.S.C.
 119(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)** - **[(d)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302947)** within the time period set
 in **[37 CFR
 1.55](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e319215)** and establishing that prior foreign application
 disclosure satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of
 **[35 U.S.C.
 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824912)** for the subject matter claimed in the application under
 examination (see **[MPEP § 2136.05(a)](s2136.html#ch2100_d2c183_21160_34b)** for a summary
 of priority requirements, and **[MPEP §§ 213](s213.html#ch200_d1ff72_162b8_108)**-**[216](s216.html#ch200_d1ff72_27189_3b)**
 for detailed information); and/or
* (F) Submitting a benefit claim under **[35 U.S.C.
 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302951)** or **[120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**, within the time periods
 set in **[37
 CFR 1.78](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e320662)** and establishing that the prior application
 satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of **[35 U.S.C.
 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824912)** for the subject matter claimed in the application under
 examination (see**[MPEP § 2136.05(a)](s2136.html#ch2100_d2c183_21160_34b)** for a summary
 of benefit requirements, and **[MPEP § 211](s211.html#ch200_d1ff71_1bd25_18b)***et seq.* for detailed information).



# 2136.05(a) Antedating a Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
 Reference [R-10.2019]


When a prior U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or
 international application publication is not a statutory bar, a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection can be overcome by antedating the filing date
 (see **[MPEP §
 2136.03](s2136.html#d0e205924)** regarding critical reference date of
 **[pre‑AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** prior art) of the reference by submitting an
 affidavit or declaration under **[37 CFR 1.131](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)**. The filing date of
 a **[pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** reference can also be antedated by establishing priority
 to, or the benefit of, the filing date of an earlier application under
 **[35 U.S.C.
 119](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)** or **[35 U.S.C. 120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**. 
 

**I.** **AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION UNDER 37
 CFR 1.131**An affidavit or declaration under
 **[37 CFR
 1.131(a)](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** can overcome a prior art rejection under
 **[pre‑AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** by proving invention of the claimed subject
 matter by the inventor or at least one joint inventor prior to the effective date
 of the reference relied upon in the rejection.
 


When the claims of the reference U.S. patent or
 U.S. patent application publication and the application are directed to the same
 invention or are obvious variants, an affidavit or declaration under
 **[37 CFR
 1.131(a)](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** is not an acceptable method of overcoming the
 rejection. Under these circumstances, the examiner must determine whether a double
 patenting rejection or interference is appropriate. If there is a common assignee
 or inventor between the application and patent, a double patenting rejection must
 be made. See **[MPEP §
 804](s804.html#d0e98894)**. Note that a terminal disclaimer does not overcome a
 **[pre‑AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** rejection. See, e.g., *In re
 Bartfeld,* 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If there is
 no common assignee or inventor and the rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** is the only possible rejection, the examiner must
 determine whether an interference should be declared. See **[MPEP Chapter
 2300](mpep-2300.html#d0e237627)** for more information regarding interferences.
 


For information on the required contents of a **[37 CFR
 1.131](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** affidavit or declaration and the situations in which
 such affidavits and declarations are permitted, see **[MPEP § 715](s715.html#d0e89737)***et seq.*


An affidavit or declaration under
 **[37 CFR
 1.131](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** is not appropriate if the reference describes an
 inventor's or at least one joint inventor's own work. In this case, applicant must
 submit an affidavit or declaration under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)**. See
 **[MPEP § 2136.05(b)](s2136.html#ch2100_d2c183_211c7_5e)** for more information concerning the
 requirements of **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)** affidavits and declarations. 
 

**II.** **ESTABLISHING PRIORITY TO, OR THE
 BENEFIT OF, AN EARLIER FILING DATE**A rejection based on **[pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** can be overcome by:
 


* (A) Submitting a claim to priority under
 **[35
 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)** within the time period set in
 **[37
 CFR 1.55](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e319215)**:
* + (1)
		- (a) for applications filed on or after
		 September 16, 2012, by filing a corrected application data sheet
		 under **[37 CFR 1.76](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e320348)**
		 which identifies a prior foreign application in accordance with
		 **[37 CFR 1.55](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e319215)**,
		 or
		- (b) for applications filed prior to
		 September 16, 2012, by filing a corrected application data sheet
		 under **[37 CFR 1.76](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e320348)**
		 which identifies a prior foreign application in accordance with
		 **[37 CFR 1.55](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e319215)**
		 or by identifying the prior foreign application in the oath or
		 declaration under **[pre-AIA 37 CFR
		 1.63](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e319759)**,
	and
	+ (2) by establishing that the prior foreign
	 application satisfies the enablement and written description
	 requirements of **[35 U.S.C. 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824912)**
	 (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012), or
	 **[35 U.S.C. 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first paragraph (for
	 applications filed prior to September 16, 2012); or filing a grantable
	 petition to accept an unintentionally delayed priority claim under
	 **[37 CFR 1.55](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e319215)**. See
	 **[MPEP §§ 213 - 216](s213.html#ch200_d1ff72_162b8_108)**.
	 The foreign priority filing date must antedate the reference and be
	 perfected. The filing date of the priority document is not perfected
	 unless applicant has filed a certified priority document in the
	 application (and an English language translation, if the document is
	 not in English) (see **[37 CFR 1.55](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e319215)**);
	 and/or
* (B) Submitting a benefit claim under
 **[35
 U.S.C. 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302951)** or **[120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**, within the time periods set in **[37 CFR
 1.78](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e320662)**:
	+ (1)
		- (a) for applications filed on or after
		 September 16, 2012, filing an application data sheet under
		 **[37 CFR 1.76](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e320348)**
		 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in
		 accordance with **[37 CFR 1.78](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e320662)**,
		 or
		- (b) for applications filed prior to
		 September 16, 2012, amending the specification of the
		 application to contain a specific reference to a prior
		 application or by filing an application data sheet under
		 **[37 CFR 1.76](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e320348)**
		 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in
		 accordance with **[37 CFR
		 1.78](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e320662)**,
	and
	+ (2) establishing that the prior application
	 satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of
	 **[35 U.S.C. 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824912)**
	 (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012), or
	 **[35 U.S.C. 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first paragraph (for
	 applications filed prior to September 16, 2012) or filing a grantable
	 petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim under
	 **[37 CFR 1.78](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e320662)**.


The filing date of a prior application cannot be
 used to antedate a reference if the application at issue is not entitled to claim
 the benefit of the prior application under **[35 U.S.C. 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302951)**,
 **[120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**, **[121](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303040912)**, or **[365(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307053)**.
 *In re Costello,* 717 F.2d 1346, 219 USPQ 389 (Fed. Cir.
 1983).
 




# 2136.05(b) Showing The Reference Is Describing An
 Inventor's Or At Least One Joint Inventor's Own Work [R-10.2019]


A rejection based on **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** can be
 overcome by filing an affidavit or declaration under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)**
 showing that the reference invention is not by "another." "The fact that an
 application has named a different inventive entity than a patent does not necessarily
 make that patent prior art." *Applied Materials Inc. v. Gemini Research
 Corp.,* 835 F.2d 279, 15 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The issue turns on
 what the evidence of record shows as to who invented the
 subject matter. *In re Whittle,* 454 F.2d 1193, 1195, 172 USPQ 535,
 537 (CCPA 1972). In fact, even if an inventor's or at least one joint inventor's work
 was publicly disclosed prior to the patent application, the inventor's or at least
 one joint inventor's own work may not be used against the application subject to
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** unless there is a time bar under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. *In re DeBaun,* 687 F.2d 459, 214 USPQ
 933 (CCPA 1982) (citing *In re Katz,* 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14
 (CCPA 1982)). However, an affidavit or declaration under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)**
 that is only a naked assertion of inventorship and that fails to provide any context,
 explanation or evidence to support that assertion is insufficient to show that the
 relied-upon subject matter was the inventor’s own work. See *EmeraChem
 Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,* 859 F.3d 1341, 123 USPQ2d
 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding that a declaration submitted by inventor Campbell
 insufficient to establish that he and Guth (now deceased) were inventors of the
 subject matter disclosed in a patent naming Campbell, Guth, Danziger, and Padron
 because "[n]othing in the declaration itself, or in addition to the declaration,
 provides any context, explanation, or evidence to lend credence to the inventor's
 bare assertion" and more than twenty years had passed since the alleged events
 occurred. *Id.* at 1345; 123 USPQ2d at 1149.). Therefore, when the
 unclaimed subject matter of a reference is an inventor's or at least one joint
 inventor's own invention, a *prima facie* case based on the patent,
 U.S. patent application publication, or international application publication, may be
 overcome by showing that the disclosure is a description of the inventor's or at
 least one joint inventor's own previous work. Such a showing can be made by proving
 that the inventor(s) of the U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or the
 international application publication, was associated with applicant (e.g., same
 assignee) and learned of the inventor's or at least one joint inventor's invention
 from the inventor or at least one joint inventor directly or indirectly. *In
 re Mathews,* 408 F.2d 1393, 161 USPQ 276 (CCPA 1969). 
 


In the situation where one application is first filed
 naming sole inventor X and then a later application is filed naming joint inventors X
 & Y, it must be proven that the joint invention was made first, was thereafter
 described in the sole inventor's patent, or was thereafter described in the sole
 inventor's U.S. patent application publication or international application
 publication, and then the joint application was filed. *In re Land,*
 368 F.2d 866, 151 USPQ 621 (CCPA 1966).
 


In *In re Land,* separate U.S. patents to Rogers
 and to Land were used to reject a joint application to Rogers and Land under
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**/**[103](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)**. The inventors worked for the
 same company (Polaroid) and in the same laboratory. All the patents flowed from the
 same research. In addition, the patent applications were prepared by the same
 attorneys, were interrelated and contained cross-references to each other. The court
 affirmed the rejection because (1) the inventive entities of the patents (one to
 Rogers and one to Land) were different from the inventive entity of the joint
 application (Rogers and Land) and (2) Land and Rogers brought their knowledge of
 their individual work with them when they made the joint invention. There was no
 indication that the portions of the references relied on disclosed anything they did
 jointly. Nor was there a showing that what they did jointly
 was done before the filing of the reference patent applications.
 


See also *In re Carreira,* 532 F.2d 1356, 189 USPQ
 461 (CCPA 1976) (The examiner rejected claims to a joint application to Carreira,
 Kyrakakis, Solodar, and Labana under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** and 103
 in view of a U.S. patent issued to Tulagin and Carreira or a patent issued to Clark.
 The applicants submitted declarations under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)** by Tulagin and Clark
 in which each declarant stated he was "not the inventor of the use of compounds
 having a hydroxyl group in a position ortho to an azo linkage." The court held that
 these statements were vague and inconclusive because the declarants did not disclose
 the use of this generic compound but rather species of this generic compound in their
 patents and it was the species which met the claims. The declaration that each did
 not invent the use of the generic compound does not establish that Tulagin and Clark
 did not invent the use of the species.) 
 


**[MPEP §
 715.01(a)](s715.html#d0e90674)**, **[§ 715.01(c)](s715.html#d0e90779)**, and
 **[§
 716.10](s716.html#d0e93797)** set forth more information pertaining to the
 contents and uses of affidavits and declarations under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)**
 for antedating references. See **[MPEP § 2146](s2146.html#d0e213206)**for information
 pertaining to rejections under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**/**[103](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)** and the applicability of
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 103(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)**.
 

**I.** **APPLICANT NEED NOT SHOW DILIGENCE OR REDUCTION TO PRACTICE WHEN THE SUBJECT
 MATTER DISCLOSED IN THE REFERENCE IS APPLICANT’S OWN WORK**When the reference reflects an inventor's or at least one joint
 inventor's own work, evidence of diligence or reduction to practice does not need
 to be provided in order to establish that the inventor or at least one joint
 inventor invented the subject matter disclosed in the reference. A showing that
 the reference disclosure arose from an inventor's or at least one joint inventor's
 work coupled with a showing of conception by the inventor or at least one joint
 inventor before the filing date of the reference will overcome the
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection. The showing can be made by
 submission of an affidavit under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)** by the inventor
 or at least one joint inventor who invented the subject matter. The other joint
 inventors, if applicable, need not submit an affidavit disclaiming inventorship,
 but, if submitted, a disclaimer by all other joint inventors should be considered
 by the examiner. *In re DeBaun,* 687 F.2d 459, 214 USPQ 933 (CCPA
 1982) (Declaration submitted by DeBaun stated that he was the inventor of subject
 matter disclosed in the U.S. patent reference of DeBaun and Noll. Exhibits were
 attached to the declaration showing conception and included drawings DeBaun had
 prepared and given to counsel for purposes of preparing the application which
 issued as the reference patent. The court held that, even though the evidence was
 not sufficient to antedate the prior art patent under **[37 CFR
 1.131](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)**, diligence and/or reduction to practice was not
 required to show DeBaun invented the subject matter. Declarant’s exhibits and
 statement that he conceived the invention first was enough to overcome the
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection.). 
 

**II.** **CLAIMING OF INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OR SUBCOMBINATIONS IN A COMBINATION CLAIM
 OF THE REFERENCE DOES NOT ITSELF ESTABLISH THAT THE INVENTOR OR AT LEAST ONE
 JOINT INVENTOR INVENTED THOSE ELEMENTS**The existence of combination claims in a reference is not
 evidence that the inventor or at least one joint inventor invented the individual
 elements or subcombinations included if the elements and subcombinations are not
 separately claimed apart from the combination. *In re DeBaun,*
 687 F.2d 459, 214 USPQ 933 (CCPA 1982) (citing *In re Facius,*
 408 F.2d 1396, 1406, 161 USPQ 294, 301 (CCPA 1969)).
 


See also *In re Mathews,* 408 F.2d 1393, 161
 USPQ 276 (CCPA 1969) (On September 15, 1961, Dewey filed an application disclosing
 and claiming a time delay protective device for an electric circuit. In disclosing
 the invention, Dewey completely described, but did not claim, a "gating means 19"
 invented by Mathews which was usable in the protective device. Dewey and Mathews
 were coworkers at General Electric Company, the assignee. Mathews filed his
 application on March 7, 1963, before the Dewey patent issued but almost 18 months
 after its filing. The Mathews application disclosed that "one illustration of a
 circuit embodying the present invention is shown in copending patent application
 S.N. 138,476-Dewey." The examiner used Dewey to reject all the Mathews claims
 under **[pre-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. In response, Mathews submitted an
 affidavit by Dewey under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)**. In the
 affidavit, Dewey stated that he did not invent the gating means 19 but had learned
 of the gating means through Mathews and that GE attorneys had advised that the
 gating means be disclosed in Dewey’s application to comply with **[35 U.S.C.
 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first paragraph. The examiner argued that the only way
 to overcome a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection was by submitting an
 affidavit or declaration under **[37 CFR 1.131](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** to antedate the
 filing date of the reference. The court reversed the rejection, holding that the
 totality of the evidence on record showed that Dewey derived his knowledge from
 Mathews who is "the original, first and sole inventor.").
 




[[top]](#top)


, 
# 2136.01 Status of Unpublished or Published as Redacted U.S. Application
 as a Reference Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) [R-10.2019]


*[Editor Note: This MPEP section is **not applicable** to applications
 subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA
 as set forth in **[35 U.S.C. 100 (note)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d917_1bef1_2b)**. See
 **[MPEP
 § 2159](s2159.html#ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd)** et seq. to determine whether an application is
 subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and **[MPEP §
 2150](s2150.html#ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e)** et seq. for examination of applications subject to
 those provisions.]*


If an earlier filed, copending, and unpublished U.S. patent
 application discloses subject matter which would anticipate the claims in a later filed
 pending U.S. application which has a different inventive entity, the examiner should
 determine whether a provisional rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** of the
 later filed application can be made. In addition, a provisional rejection under
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** may be made, in certain circumstances as described below,
 if the earlier filed, pending application has been published as redacted
 (**[37 CFR
 1.217](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e325410)**) and the subject matter relied upon in the rejection is not
 supported in the redacted publication of the patent application.
 

**I.** **WHEN THERE IS NO COMMON ASSIGNEE, APPLICANT, OR INVENTOR, A U.S. APPLICATION
 MUST ISSUE AS A PATENT OR BE PUBLISHED AS A SIR OR AS AN APPLICATION PUBLICATION
 BEFORE IT IS AVAILABLE AS PRIOR ART UNDER Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)** In addition to U.S. patents and SIRs, certain U.S. application
 publications and certain international application publications are also available as
 prior art under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of their effective U.S. filing
 dates (which will include certain international filing dates). 
 


If there is no common assignee, common applicant, or common
 inventor and the application was not published pursuant to **[35 U.S.C.
 122(b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303054)**, the confidential status of applications under
 **[35 U.S.C.
 122(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303054)** must be maintained and no rejection can be made relying
 on the earlier filed, unpublished application, or subject matter not supported in a
 redacted application publication, as prior art under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. For applications subject to **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(g)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302424)**, if the filing dates of the applications are within
 6 months of each other (3 months for simple subject matter) then interference may be
 proper. See **[MPEP
 Chapter 2300](mpep-2300.html#d0e237627)**. If the application with the earliest
 effective U.S. filing date will not be published pursuant to **[35 U.S.C.
 122(b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303054)**, it must be allowed to issue once all the statutory
 requirements are met. After the patent has issued, it may be used as a reference in a
 rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** in the still pending application as
 appropriate. See **[MPEP
 § 2136](s2136.html#d0e205544)***et seq.*

**II.** **WHEN THERE IS A COMMON ASSIGNEE, APPLICANT, OR INVENTOR, A PROVISIONAL PRE-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 102(e) REJECTION OVER AN EARLIER FILED UNPUBLISHED APPLICATION CAN BE
 MADE**Based on the assumption that an application will ripen into a U.S.
 patent (or into an application publication), it is permissible to provisionally
 reject a later application over an earlier filed, and unpublished, application under
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** when there is a common assignee, applicant, or
 inventor. See, e.g., *In re Irish,* 433 F.2d 1342, 167 USPQ 764
 (CCPA 1970). In addition, a provisional **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**
 rejection may be made if the earlier filed copending U.S. application has been
 published as redacted (**[37 CFR 1.217](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e325410)**) and the subject
 matter relied upon in the rejection is not supported in the redacted publication of
 the patent application. Such a provisional rejection "serves to put applicant on
 notice at the earliest possible time of the possible prior art relationship between
 copending applications" and gives applicant the fullest opportunity to overcome the
 rejection by amendment or submission of evidence. In addition, since both
 applications are pending and usually have the same assignee, more options are
 available to applicant for overcoming the provisional rejection than if the other
 application were already issued. *Ex parte Bartfeld,* 16 USPQ2d 1714
 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990) *aff’d on other grounds,* 925 F.2d
 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Note that provisional rejections over
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** are only authorized when there is a common
 inventor or assignee, otherwise the copending application prior to publication must
 remain confidential.
 


Therefore, if (1) at least one common inventor or applicant
 exists between the applications or the applications are commonly assigned, and (2)
 the effective filing dates are different; then a provisional rejection of the
 later-filed application should be made. The provisional rejection is appropriate in
 circumstances where, if the earlier-filed application is published or becomes a
 patent, it would constitute actual prior art under **[35 U.S.C. 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**.
 Because the earlier-filed application is not published at the time of the rejection,
 the rejection must be provisionally made under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**.
 


A provisional rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** can be overcome in the same manner that a
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** rejection can be overcome. See
 **[MPEP §
 2136.05](s2136.html#d0e206333)**. The provisional rejection can
 also be overcome by abandoning the applications and filing a new
 application containing the subject matter of both. Form paragraph
 **[7.15.01.fti](#fp7.15.01.fti)** should be used when making a provisional
 rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)**.
 

**III.** **PROVISIONAL REJECTION UNDER PRE-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 103(a) CAN BE MADE USING PRIOR ART UNDER PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)**For applications filed on or after November 29, 1999 or pending on
 or after December 10, 2004, a provisional rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 103(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)** using prior art under  **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** is not proper if the application contains evidence that
 the application and the prior art reference were owned by the same person, or subject
 to an obligation of assignment to the same person, at the time the invention was
 made. See **[pre-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 103(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302521)**. 
 


In addition, certain non-commonly owned references may be
 disqualified from being applied in a rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 103(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)** due to the Cooperative Research and Technology
 Enhancement Act of 2004 (CREATE Act) (Public Law 108-453; 118 Stat. 3596 (2004)),
 which was enacted on December 10, 2004 and was effective for all patents granted on
 or after December 10, 2004. 
 


See **[MPEP §§ 2146](s2146.html#d0e213206)**-**[2146.03](s2146.html#ch2100_d2c184_127cc_34b)** for information pertaining to prior art
 disqualified under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302521)**, evidence of common ownership, and
 examination procedure with respect to **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302521)**; see
 **[MPEP
 § 2146.03(a)](s2146.html#ch2100_d2c184_12851_21a)** for a discussion of provisional rejections
 under **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 103(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)** using provisional prior art under
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**.
 


**[Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.103(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)**, as
 amended by the CREATE Act, continues to apply only to subject matter which qualifies
 as prior art under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**, and which is being
 relied upon in a rejection under **[35 U.S.C. 103](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)**. It does not apply
 to or affect subject matter which is applied in a rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** or a double patenting rejection (see **[37 CFR
 1.78(c)](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e320662)** and **[MPEP § 804](s804.html#d0e98894)**). In addition, if the
 subject matter qualifies as prior art under any other subsection of **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** (e.g., **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**)
 it will not be disqualified as prior art under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)**. See
 also **[MPEP §
 2146](s2146.html#d0e213206)***et seq.* for information relating to rejections under
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 103](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)** and evidence of joint research agreements.
 


, 
# 2136.02 Content of the Prior Art Available Against the Claims [R-10.2019]


*Editor Note: This MPEP section is **not applicable** to applications
 subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA
 as set forth in **[35 U.S.C. 100 (note)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d917_1bef1_2b)**. See
 **[MPEP
 § 2159](s2159.html#ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd)** et seq. to determine whether an application is
 subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and **[MPEP §
 2150](s2150.html#ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e)** et seq. for examination of applications subject to
 those provisions.]*

**I.** **A 35 U.S.C. 102(e) REJECTION MAY RELY ON ANY PART OF THE PATENT OR APPLICATION
 PUBLICATION DISCLOSURE** Under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**, the
 entire disclosure of a U.S. patent, a U.S. patent application publication, or an
 international application publication having an earlier effective U.S. filing date
 (which will include certain international filing dates) can be relied on to reject
 the claims. *Sun Studs, Inc. v. ATA Equip. Leasing, Inc.,* 872 F.2d
 978, 983, 10 USPQ2d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See **[MPEP §
 2120.01](s2120.html#ch2100_d2c183_20d9a_21c)**.
 

**II.** **REFERENCE MUST ITSELF CONTAIN THE SUBJECT MATTER RELIED ON IN THE
 REJECTION**When a U.S. patent, a U.S. patent application publication, or an
 international application publication is used to reject claims under
 **[pre-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**, the disclosure relied on in the rejection
 must be present in the issued patent or application publication. It is the earliest
 effective U.S. filing date (which will include certain international filing dates) of
 the U.S. patent or application publication being relied on as the critical reference
 date and subject matter not included in the patent or application publication itself
 can only be used when that subject matter becomes public. Portions of the patent
 application which were canceled are not part of the patent or application publication
 and thus cannot be relied on in a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**
 rejection over the issued patent or application publication. *Ex parte
 Stalego,* 154 USPQ 52 (Bd. App. 1966). Similarly, subject matter that is
 disclosed in an abandoned, unpublished parent application but was not carried over
 into the child patent or application publication may not be relied on as prior art
 under **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)**. *In re Klesper,* 397 F.2d 882,
 886, 158 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1968). See **[MPEP § 901.02](s901.html#d0e110072)** for more information
 on availability of abandoned applications as prior art. Likewise, subject matter
 which is disclosed in a parent application, but not included in the child
 continuation-in-part (CIP) cannot be relied on in a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection over the issued or published CIP. *In
 re Lund,* 376 F.2d 982, 153 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1967) (The examiner made a
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection over an issued U.S. patent which was a
 continuation-in-part (CIP). The parent application of the U.S. patent reference
 contained an example II which was not carried over to the CIP. The court held that
 the subject matter embodied in the canceled example II could not be relied on as of
 either parent or child filing date. Thus, the use of example II subject matter to
 reject the claims under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** was
 improper.).
 


Where a U.S. patent claims benefit to a provisional
 application, at least one claim of the patent must be supported by the disclosure of
 the relied upon provisional application in compliance with**[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first
 paragraph](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, in order for the patent to be usable as prior art
 under **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of the relied upon provisional application’s
 filing date. See **[MPEP
 § 2136.03](s2136.html#d0e205924)**, subsection III.
 

**III.** **THE SUPREME COURT HAS AUTHORIZED 35 U.S.C. 103 REJECTIONS BASED ON PRE-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)**U.S. patents may be used as of their filing dates to show that the
 claimed subject matter is anticipated or obvious. Obviousness can be shown by
 combining other prior art with the U.S. patent reference in a **[35 U.S.C. 103](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)**
 rejection. *Hazeltine Research v. Brenner,* 382 U.S. 252, 147 USPQ
 429 (1965). Similarly, certain U.S. application publications and certain
 international application publications may also be used as of their earliest
 effective U.S. filing dates (which will include certain international filing dates)
 to show that the claimed subject matter would have been anticipated or obvious. 
 


See **[MPEP § 2146](s2146.html#d0e213206)***et seq.* for additional information on rejections under
 **[35 U.S.C.
 103](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)** and evidence of common ownership or a joint research
 agreement. 
 


, 
# 2136.03 Critical Reference Date [R-10.2019]


*[Editor Note: This MPEP section is **not applicable** to applications
 subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA
 as set forth in **[35 U.S.C. 100 (note)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d917_1bef1_2b)**. See
 **[MPEP
 § 2159](s2159.html#ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd)** et seq. to determine whether an application is
 subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and **[MPEP §
 2150](s2150.html#ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e)** et seq. for examination of applications subject to
 those provisions.]*

**I.** **FOREIGN PRIORITY DATE*** 

***Reference’s Foreign Priority Date Under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f)
 Cannot Be Used as the Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) Reference Date*****[Pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** is explicitly limited to certain references
 "filed in the United States before the invention thereof by
 the applicant" (emphasis added). Foreign applications’ filing dates that are
 claimed (via **[35
 U.S.C. 119(a)–(d), (f)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)** or **[35 U.S.C.
 365(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307034)**) in applications, which have been published as U.S.
 or WIPO application publications or patented in the U.S., may
 not be used as **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** dates
 for prior art purposes. This includes international filing dates claimed as
 foreign priority dates under **[35 U.S.C. 365(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307034)**.Therefore,
 the foreign priority date of the reference under **[35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d),
 (f)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)**, and **[35 U.S.C. 365(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307034)** cannot be
 used to antedate the application filing date. In contrast, applicant may be able
 to overcome the **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection by proving the applicant
 is entitled to the **[35 U.S.C. 119](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)** priority date
 which is earlier than the reference’s U.S. filing date. *In re
 Hilmer,* 359 F.2d 859, 149 USPQ 480 (CCPA 1966) *(Hilmer
 I*) (Applicant filed an application with a right of priority to a
 German application. The examiner rejected the claims over a U.S. patent to Habicht
 based on its Swiss priority date. The U.S. filing date of Habicht was later than
 the application’s German priority date. The court held that the reference’s Swiss
 priority date could not be relied on in a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**
 rejection. Because the U.S. filing date of Habicht was later than the German
 priority date of the application, the rejection was reversed.). See
 **[MPEP
 § 216](s216.html#ch200_d1ff72_27189_3b)** for information on procedures to be followed in
 considering applicant's right of priority. 
 


Note that certain international application (PCT) filings are
 considered to be "filings in the United States" for purposes of applying an
 application publication as prior art. See **[MPEP §
 2120.01](s2120.html#ch2100_d2c183_20d9a_21c)**.
 

**II.** **INTERNATIONAL (PCT) APPLICATIONS; INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION
 PUBLICATIONS*** 

***A.******International Application Filed On or After November 29,
 2000***If the potential reference resulted from, or claimed the benefit
 of, an international application, the following must be determined:
 


* (A) If the international application meets the following three
 conditions:
	+ (1) an international filing date on or after November 29,
	 2000;
	+ (2) designated the United States; and
	+ (3) published under **[PCT Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)**
	 in English,


the international filing date is a U.S. filing date for
 prior art purposes under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. If such an international application properly
 claims benefit to an earlier-filed U.S. or international application, apply
 the reference under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**
 as of the earlier filing date, provided all the conditions of
 **[pre-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** and **[35 U.S.C.
 120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)** or **[365(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307034)** are met. In
 addition, the subject matter relied upon in the rejection must be disclosed
 in the earlier-filed application in compliance with **[35 U.S.C.
 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)** /**[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**,
 first paragraph, in order to give that subject matter the benefit of the
 earlier filing date under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**.
 


If such an international application
 properly claims benefit to an earlier-filed U.S. provisional application,
 apply the reference under**[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**
 as of the earlier filing date, provided that the provisional application has
 proper support for the subject matter as required by **[35 U.S.C.
 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302951)** and that at least one claim of the
 international application is supported by the written description of the
 relied upon provisional application in compliance with **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first paragraph or **[35 U.S.C.
 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**. See **[MPEP § 2136.03](s2136.html#d0e205924)**, subsection
 III.
 


Note: where the earlier application is an
 international application, the earlier international application must
 satisfy the same three conditions (i.e., filed on or after November 29,
 2000, designated the U.S., and published in English under **[PCT Article
 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)**) for the earlier international filing date to be
 the U.S. filing date for prior art purposes under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**.
* (B) If the international application was filed on or after
 November 29, 2000, but did **not** designate the United States or
 was **not** published in English under **[PCT Article
 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)**, do **not** treat the international
 filing date as a U.S. filing date. In this situation, do **not**
 apply the reference as of its international filing date, its date of
 completion of the **[35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and
 (4)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307164)** requirements, or any earlier filing date to which
 such an international application claims benefit or priority. The reference
 may be applied under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or
 (b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of its publication date, or **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of any later U.S. filing date of an
 application that properly claimed the benefit of the international
 application (if applicable).

***B.******International Application Filed Before November 29, 2000***References based on international applications that
 were filed prior to November 29, 2000 are subject to the pre-AIPA version of 35
 U.S.C. 102(e) (i.e., the version in force on November 28, 2000) as set forth
 below.
 



#### *Former 35 U.S.C. 102  
 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent (as
 in force on November 28, 2000)*


A person shall be entitled to a patent
 unless-
 


\*\*\*\*\*


* (e) the invention was described in a patent
 granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United
 States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or on an
 international application by another who has fulfilled the requirements
 of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of **[section 371(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307183)** of
 this title before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.


\*\*\*\*\*



If an international application has an
 international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, the reference should be
 applied under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 374 as in force on November 28,
 2000 (prior to the AIPA amendments): 
 


* (1) For U.S. patents, apply the reference under 35
 U.S.C. 102(e) as in force on November 28, 2000 as of the earlier of the date
 of completion of the requirements of **[35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and
 (4)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307183)** or the filing date of the later-filed U.S.
 application that claimed the benefit of the international application;
* (2) For U.S. application publications and WIPO
 publications directly resulting from international applications under
 **[PCT
 Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363634)**, never apply these references under 35
 U.S.C. 102(e) as in force on November 28, 2000. These references may be
 applied as of their publication dates under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)
 or (b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**;
* (3) For U.S. application publications of
 applications that claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 365(c) of an
 international application filed prior to November 29, 2000, apply the
 reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as in force on November 28, 2000 as of the
 actual filing date of the later-filed U.S. application that claimed the
 benefit of the international application.


Examiners should be aware that although a publication of, or a
 U.S. patent issued from, an international application may not be available as
 prior art under former 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as in force on November 28, 2000 or under
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)**, the corresponding WIPO publication of an
 international application may have an earlier  **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or
 (b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** date.
 

**III.** **BENEFIT OF PROVISIONAL APPLICATION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 119(e)**The critical reference date under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** of a U.S. patent, a U.S. patent application publication,
 as well as an international application publication having prior art effect under
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**, may be the filing date of a relied upon
 provisional application only if at least one of the claims in the reference patent,
 patent application publication, or international application publication is supported
 by the written description of the provisional application in compliance with
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first paragraph, or **[35 U.S.C.
 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**. See *Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi,* 872 F.3d
 1367, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2017); *Dynamic Drinkware, LLC, v. National Graphics,
 Inc.,* 800 F.3d 1375, 116 USPQ2d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The provisional
 application must also describe, in compliance with **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first paragraph, or **[35 U.S.C.
 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)**, the subject matter relied upon in the reference patent
 or publication to make the rejection. See **[MPEP § 2136](s2136.html#d0e205544)**, examples 2, 4, and
 7.
 


 Note that international applications which (1) were
 filed prior to November 29, 2000, or (2) did not designate the U.S., or (3) were not
 published in English under **[PCT Article 21(2)](mpep-9025-appx-t.html#d0e363622)** by WIPO, may
 not be used to reach back (bridge) to an earlier filing date through a priority or
 benefit claim for prior art purposes under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. 
 

**IV.** **BENEFIT OF NONPROVISIONAL APPLICATION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 120*** 

***Filing Date of U.S. Parent Application Can Only Be Used as the Pre-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 102(e) Date If It Supports the Subject Matter Relied Upon in the
 Continuing Application***For prior art purposes, a U.S. patent or patent application
 publication that claims the benefit of an earlier filing date under
 **[35 U.S.C.
 120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)** of a prior nonprovisional application (i.e., a
 continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application) would be accorded
 the earlier filing date as its prior art date under **[pre-AIA  35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**, provided the earlier-filed application properly
 supports the subject matter relied upon in any rejection in compliance with
 **[35
 U.S.C. 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)** or **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.  112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first
 paragraph. In other words, the subject matter used in the rejection must be
 disclosed in the earlier-filed application in compliance with **[35 U.S.C.
 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5)** or **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first
 paragraph, in order for that subject matter to be entitled to the earlier filing
 date under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**.
 


See also **[MPEP § 2136](s2136.html#d0e205544)**, examples 2 and 5 to
 9.
 

**V.** **DATE OF CONCEPTION OR REDUCTION TO PRACTICE*** 

***Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) Reference Date Is the Filing Date, Not Date
 of Inventor’s Conception or Reduction to Practice*** If a reference available under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** discloses, but does not claim the subject matter of
 the claims being examined or an obvious variant, the reference is not prior art
 under **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(g)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. Furthermore, the reference does not qualify
 as "prior art" under **[35 U.S.C. 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as of a date
 earlier than its filing date based upon any prior inventive activity that is
 disclosed in the U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication in the absence
 of evidence that the subject matter was actually reduced to practice in this
 country on an earlier date. See **[MPEP § 2138](s2138.html#d0e207005)**. When the cases are
 not in interference, the effective date of the reference as prior art is its
 filing date in the United States (which will include certain international filing
 dates), as stated in **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. See
 **[MPEP §§ 2120.01](s2120.html#ch2100_d2c183_20d9a_21c)** and**[2136](s2136.html#d0e205544)**. The date
 that the prior art subject matter was conceived or reduced to practice is of no
 importance when **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** is not at issue. *Sun
 Studs, Inc. v. ATA Equip. Leasing, Inc.,* 872 F.2d 978, 983, 10 USPQ2d
 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (The defendant sought to invalidate patents issued to
 Mason and Sohn assigned to Sun Studs. The earliest of these patents issued in June
 1973. A U.S. patent to Mouat was found which issued in March 1976 and which
 disclosed the invention of Mason and Sohn. While the patent to Mouat issued after
 the Mason and Sohn patents, it was filed 7 months earlier than the earliest of the
 Mason and Sohn patents. Sun Studs submitted affidavits showing conception in 1969
 and diligence to the constructive reduction to practice and therefore antedated
 the patent to Mouat. The defendant sought to show that Mouat conceived the
 invention in 1966. The court held that conception of the subject matter of the
 reference only becomes an issue when the claims of the
 conflicting patents cover inventions which are the same or obvious over one
 another. When **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** applies but not **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(g)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**, the filing date of the prior art patent is the
 earliest date that can be used to reject or invalidate claims.).
 


, 
# 2136.04 Different Inventive Entity; Meaning of "By Another" [R-10.2019]


*[Editor Note: This MPEP section is **not applicable** to applications
 subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA
 as set forth in **[35 U.S.C. 100 (note)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d917_1bef1_2b)**. See
 **[MPEP
 § 2159](s2159.html#ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd)** et seq. to determine whether an application is
 subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and **[MPEP §
 2150](s2150.html#ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e)** et seq. for examination of applications subject to
 those provisions.]*

**I.** **IF THERE IS ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE INVENTIVE ENTITY, THE REFERENCE IS "BY
 ANOTHER"**"Another" means other than applicants, *In re
 Land,* 368 F.2d 866, 151 USPQ 621 (CCPA 1966), in other words, a
 different inventive entity. The inventive entity is different if not all inventors
 are the same. The fact that the application and reference have one or more inventors
 in common is immaterial. *Ex parte DesOrmeaux,* 25 USPQ2d 2040 (Bd.
 Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (The examiner made a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**
 rejection based on an issued U.S. patent to three inventors. The rejected application
 was a continuation-in-part of the issued parent with an extra inventor. The Board
 found that the patent was "by another" and thus could be used in a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**/**[103](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302455)** rejection of the
 application.).
 

**II.** **A DIFFERENT INVENTIVE ENTITY IS *PRIMA FACIE* EVIDENCE THAT
 THE REFERENCE IS "BY ANOTHER"** As stated by the House and Senate reports on the bills enacting
 section **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** as part of the 1952 Patent Act, this subsection
 of 102 codifies the Milburn rule of *Milburn v. Davis-Bournonville,*
 270 U.S. 390, 1926 C.D. 303, 344 O.G. 817 (1926). The Milburn rule authorized the use
 of a U.S. patent containing a disclosure of the invention as a reference against a
 later filed application as of the U.S. patent filing date. The existence of an
 earlier filed U.S. application containing the subject matter claimed in the
 application being examined indicates that applicant was not the first inventor.
 Therefore, a U.S. patent, a U.S. patent application publication or international
 application publication, by a different inventive entity, whether or not the
 application shares some inventors in common with the patent, is *prima
 facie* evidence that the invention was made "by another" as set forth in
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. *In re Mathews,* 408 F.2d 1393,
 161 USPQ 276 (CCPA 1969); *In re Facius,* 408 F.2d 1396, 161 USPQ
 294 (CCPA 1969); *Ex parte DesOrmeaux,* 25 USPQ2d 2040 (Bd. Pat.
 App. & Inter. 1992). See **[MPEP § 2136.05](s2136.html#d0e206333)***et seq.* for discussion of methods of overcoming **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejections.
 


, 
# 2136.05 Overcoming a Rejection Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) [R-10.2019]


*[Editor Note: This MPEP section is **not applicable** to applications
 subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA
 as set forth in **[35 U.S.C. 100 (note)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d917_1bef1_2b)**. See
 **[MPEP
 § 2159](s2159.html#ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd)** et seq. to determine whether an application is
 subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and **[MPEP §
 2150](s2150.html#ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e)** et seq. for examination of applications subject to
 those provisions. Information pertaining to overcoming **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejections has been moved to **[MPEP §
 2136.05(a)](s2136.html#ch2100_d2c183_21160_34b)** for affidavits or declarations under
 **[37 CFR
 1.131](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** and benefit or priority claims, and to
 **[MPEP §
 2136.05(b)](s2136.html#ch2100_d2c183_211c7_5e)** for affidavits or declarations under
 **[37 CFR
 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)**.]*


In all applications, an applicant may overcome a
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection by persuasively arguing that the claims are
 patentably distinguishable from the prior art, or by amending the claims to patentably
 distinguish over the prior art. Additional ways available to overcome a rejection based
 on **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** prior art depend on the applicable paragraph of
 **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. See **[MPEP § 2132.01](s2132.html#d0e203530)** for overcoming a
 rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** and **[MPEP §
 2133.02(a)](s2133.html#ch2100_d2c183_21092_1c6)** for overcoming a rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_11e7d_156)**. 
 


A rejection based on **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** can be
 overcome by:
 


* (A) Persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably
 distinguishable from the prior art;
* (B) Amending the claims to patentably distinguish over
 the prior art;
* (C) Filing an affidavit or declaration under
 **[37 CFR
 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)** showing that the reference invention is not by
 "another." See **[MPEP
 §§ 715.01(a)](s715.html#d0e90674)**, **[715.01(c)](s715.html#d0e90779)**, **[716.10](s716.html#d0e93797)**, and
 **[2136.05(b)](s2136.html#ch2100_d2c183_211c7_5e)**;
* (D) Filing an affidavit or declaration under
 **[37 CFR
 1.131(a)](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** showing prior invention, if the reference is not a
 U.S. patent or a U.S. patent application publication claiming interfering subject
 matter as defined in **[37 CFR 41.203(a)](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e359662)** (subject
 matter of a claim of one party would, if prior art, have anticipated or rendered
 obvious the subject matter of a claim of the opposing party and vice versa). See
 **[MPEP §§
 715](s715.html#d0e89737)** and **[2136.05(b)](s2136.html#ch2100_d2c183_211c7_5e)**for more information on **[37 CFR
 1.131(a)](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** affidavits;
* (E) Submitting and perfecting a claim to priority under
 **[35 U.S.C.
 119(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)** - **[(d)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302947)** within the time period set
 in **[37 CFR
 1.55](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e319215)** and establishing that prior foreign application
 disclosure satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of
 **[35 U.S.C.
 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824912)** for the subject matter claimed in the application under
 examination (see **[MPEP § 2136.05(a)](s2136.html#ch2100_d2c183_21160_34b)** for a summary
 of priority requirements, and **[MPEP §§ 213](s213.html#ch200_d1ff72_162b8_108)**-**[216](s216.html#ch200_d1ff72_27189_3b)**
 for detailed information); and/or
* (F) Submitting a benefit claim under **[35 U.S.C.
 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302951)** or **[120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**, within the time periods
 set in **[37
 CFR 1.78](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e320662)** and establishing that the prior application
 satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of **[35 U.S.C.
 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824912)** for the subject matter claimed in the application under
 examination (see**[MPEP § 2136.05(a)](s2136.html#ch2100_d2c183_21160_34b)** for a summary
 of benefit requirements, and **[MPEP § 211](s211.html#ch200_d1ff71_1bd25_18b)***et seq.* for detailed information).



# 2136.05(a) Antedating a Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
 Reference [R-10.2019]


When a prior U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or
 international application publication is not a statutory bar, a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection can be overcome by antedating the filing date
 (see **[MPEP §
 2136.03](s2136.html#d0e205924)** regarding critical reference date of
 **[pre‑AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** prior art) of the reference by submitting an
 affidavit or declaration under **[37 CFR 1.131](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)**. The filing date of
 a **[pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** reference can also be antedated by establishing priority
 to, or the benefit of, the filing date of an earlier application under
 **[35 U.S.C.
 119](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)** or **[35 U.S.C. 120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**. 
 

**I.** **AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION UNDER 37
 CFR 1.131**An affidavit or declaration under
 **[37 CFR
 1.131(a)](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** can overcome a prior art rejection under
 **[pre‑AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** by proving invention of the claimed subject
 matter by the inventor or at least one joint inventor prior to the effective date
 of the reference relied upon in the rejection.
 


When the claims of the reference U.S. patent or
 U.S. patent application publication and the application are directed to the same
 invention or are obvious variants, an affidavit or declaration under
 **[37 CFR
 1.131(a)](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** is not an acceptable method of overcoming the
 rejection. Under these circumstances, the examiner must determine whether a double
 patenting rejection or interference is appropriate. If there is a common assignee
 or inventor between the application and patent, a double patenting rejection must
 be made. See **[MPEP §
 804](s804.html#d0e98894)**. Note that a terminal disclaimer does not overcome a
 **[pre‑AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** rejection. See, e.g., *In re
 Bartfeld,* 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If there is
 no common assignee or inventor and the rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** is the only possible rejection, the examiner must
 determine whether an interference should be declared. See **[MPEP Chapter
 2300](mpep-2300.html#d0e237627)** for more information regarding interferences.
 


For information on the required contents of a **[37 CFR
 1.131](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** affidavit or declaration and the situations in which
 such affidavits and declarations are permitted, see **[MPEP § 715](s715.html#d0e89737)***et seq.*


An affidavit or declaration under
 **[37 CFR
 1.131](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** is not appropriate if the reference describes an
 inventor's or at least one joint inventor's own work. In this case, applicant must
 submit an affidavit or declaration under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)**. See
 **[MPEP § 2136.05(b)](s2136.html#ch2100_d2c183_211c7_5e)** for more information concerning the
 requirements of **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)** affidavits and declarations. 
 

**II.** **ESTABLISHING PRIORITY TO, OR THE
 BENEFIT OF, AN EARLIER FILING DATE**A rejection based on **[pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** can be overcome by:
 


* (A) Submitting a claim to priority under
 **[35
 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)** within the time period set in
 **[37
 CFR 1.55](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e319215)**:
* + (1)
		- (a) for applications filed on or after
		 September 16, 2012, by filing a corrected application data sheet
		 under **[37 CFR 1.76](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e320348)**
		 which identifies a prior foreign application in accordance with
		 **[37 CFR 1.55](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e319215)**,
		 or
		- (b) for applications filed prior to
		 September 16, 2012, by filing a corrected application data sheet
		 under **[37 CFR 1.76](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e320348)**
		 which identifies a prior foreign application in accordance with
		 **[37 CFR 1.55](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e319215)**
		 or by identifying the prior foreign application in the oath or
		 declaration under **[pre-AIA 37 CFR
		 1.63](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e319759)**,
	and
	+ (2) by establishing that the prior foreign
	 application satisfies the enablement and written description
	 requirements of **[35 U.S.C. 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824912)**
	 (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012), or
	 **[35 U.S.C. 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first paragraph (for
	 applications filed prior to September 16, 2012); or filing a grantable
	 petition to accept an unintentionally delayed priority claim under
	 **[37 CFR 1.55](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e319215)**. See
	 **[MPEP §§ 213 - 216](s213.html#ch200_d1ff72_162b8_108)**.
	 The foreign priority filing date must antedate the reference and be
	 perfected. The filing date of the priority document is not perfected
	 unless applicant has filed a certified priority document in the
	 application (and an English language translation, if the document is
	 not in English) (see **[37 CFR 1.55](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e319215)**);
	 and/or
* (B) Submitting a benefit claim under
 **[35
 U.S.C. 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302951)** or **[120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**, within the time periods set in **[37 CFR
 1.78](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e320662)**:
	+ (1)
		- (a) for applications filed on or after
		 September 16, 2012, filing an application data sheet under
		 **[37 CFR 1.76](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e320348)**
		 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in
		 accordance with **[37 CFR 1.78](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e320662)**,
		 or
		- (b) for applications filed prior to
		 September 16, 2012, amending the specification of the
		 application to contain a specific reference to a prior
		 application or by filing an application data sheet under
		 **[37 CFR 1.76](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e320348)**
		 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in
		 accordance with **[37 CFR
		 1.78](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e320662)**,
	and
	+ (2) establishing that the prior application
	 satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of
	 **[35 U.S.C. 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824912)**
	 (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012), or
	 **[35 U.S.C. 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first paragraph (for
	 applications filed prior to September 16, 2012) or filing a grantable
	 petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim under
	 **[37 CFR 1.78](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e320662)**.


The filing date of a prior application cannot be
 used to antedate a reference if the application at issue is not entitled to claim
 the benefit of the prior application under **[35 U.S.C. 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302951)**,
 **[120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**, **[121](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303040912)**, or **[365(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307053)**.
 *In re Costello,* 717 F.2d 1346, 219 USPQ 389 (Fed. Cir.
 1983).
 




# 2136.05(b) Showing The Reference Is Describing An
 Inventor's Or At Least One Joint Inventor's Own Work [R-10.2019]


A rejection based on **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** can be
 overcome by filing an affidavit or declaration under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)**
 showing that the reference invention is not by "another." "The fact that an
 application has named a different inventive entity than a patent does not necessarily
 make that patent prior art." *Applied Materials Inc. v. Gemini Research
 Corp.,* 835 F.2d 279, 15 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The issue turns on
 what the evidence of record shows as to who invented the
 subject matter. *In re Whittle,* 454 F.2d 1193, 1195, 172 USPQ 535,
 537 (CCPA 1972). In fact, even if an inventor's or at least one joint inventor's work
 was publicly disclosed prior to the patent application, the inventor's or at least
 one joint inventor's own work may not be used against the application subject to
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** unless there is a time bar under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. *In re DeBaun,* 687 F.2d 459, 214 USPQ
 933 (CCPA 1982) (citing *In re Katz,* 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14
 (CCPA 1982)). However, an affidavit or declaration under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)**
 that is only a naked assertion of inventorship and that fails to provide any context,
 explanation or evidence to support that assertion is insufficient to show that the
 relied-upon subject matter was the inventor’s own work. See *EmeraChem
 Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,* 859 F.3d 1341, 123 USPQ2d
 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding that a declaration submitted by inventor Campbell
 insufficient to establish that he and Guth (now deceased) were inventors of the
 subject matter disclosed in a patent naming Campbell, Guth, Danziger, and Padron
 because "[n]othing in the declaration itself, or in addition to the declaration,
 provides any context, explanation, or evidence to lend credence to the inventor's
 bare assertion" and more than twenty years had passed since the alleged events
 occurred. *Id.* at 1345; 123 USPQ2d at 1149.). Therefore, when the
 unclaimed subject matter of a reference is an inventor's or at least one joint
 inventor's own invention, a *prima facie* case based on the patent,
 U.S. patent application publication, or international application publication, may be
 overcome by showing that the disclosure is a description of the inventor's or at
 least one joint inventor's own previous work. Such a showing can be made by proving
 that the inventor(s) of the U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or the
 international application publication, was associated with applicant (e.g., same
 assignee) and learned of the inventor's or at least one joint inventor's invention
 from the inventor or at least one joint inventor directly or indirectly. *In
 re Mathews,* 408 F.2d 1393, 161 USPQ 276 (CCPA 1969). 
 


In the situation where one application is first filed
 naming sole inventor X and then a later application is filed naming joint inventors X
 & Y, it must be proven that the joint invention was made first, was thereafter
 described in the sole inventor's patent, or was thereafter described in the sole
 inventor's U.S. patent application publication or international application
 publication, and then the joint application was filed. *In re Land,*
 368 F.2d 866, 151 USPQ 621 (CCPA 1966).
 


In *In re Land,* separate U.S. patents to Rogers
 and to Land were used to reject a joint application to Rogers and Land under
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**/**[103](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)**. The inventors worked for the
 same company (Polaroid) and in the same laboratory. All the patents flowed from the
 same research. In addition, the patent applications were prepared by the same
 attorneys, were interrelated and contained cross-references to each other. The court
 affirmed the rejection because (1) the inventive entities of the patents (one to
 Rogers and one to Land) were different from the inventive entity of the joint
 application (Rogers and Land) and (2) Land and Rogers brought their knowledge of
 their individual work with them when they made the joint invention. There was no
 indication that the portions of the references relied on disclosed anything they did
 jointly. Nor was there a showing that what they did jointly
 was done before the filing of the reference patent applications.
 


See also *In re Carreira,* 532 F.2d 1356, 189 USPQ
 461 (CCPA 1976) (The examiner rejected claims to a joint application to Carreira,
 Kyrakakis, Solodar, and Labana under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** and 103
 in view of a U.S. patent issued to Tulagin and Carreira or a patent issued to Clark.
 The applicants submitted declarations under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)** by Tulagin and Clark
 in which each declarant stated he was "not the inventor of the use of compounds
 having a hydroxyl group in a position ortho to an azo linkage." The court held that
 these statements were vague and inconclusive because the declarants did not disclose
 the use of this generic compound but rather species of this generic compound in their
 patents and it was the species which met the claims. The declaration that each did
 not invent the use of the generic compound does not establish that Tulagin and Clark
 did not invent the use of the species.) 
 


**[MPEP §
 715.01(a)](s715.html#d0e90674)**, **[§ 715.01(c)](s715.html#d0e90779)**, and
 **[§
 716.10](s716.html#d0e93797)** set forth more information pertaining to the
 contents and uses of affidavits and declarations under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)**
 for antedating references. See **[MPEP § 2146](s2146.html#d0e213206)**for information
 pertaining to rejections under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**/**[103](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)** and the applicability of
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 103(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)**.
 

**I.** **APPLICANT NEED NOT SHOW DILIGENCE OR REDUCTION TO PRACTICE WHEN THE SUBJECT
 MATTER DISCLOSED IN THE REFERENCE IS APPLICANT’S OWN WORK**When the reference reflects an inventor's or at least one joint
 inventor's own work, evidence of diligence or reduction to practice does not need
 to be provided in order to establish that the inventor or at least one joint
 inventor invented the subject matter disclosed in the reference. A showing that
 the reference disclosure arose from an inventor's or at least one joint inventor's
 work coupled with a showing of conception by the inventor or at least one joint
 inventor before the filing date of the reference will overcome the
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection. The showing can be made by
 submission of an affidavit under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)** by the inventor
 or at least one joint inventor who invented the subject matter. The other joint
 inventors, if applicable, need not submit an affidavit disclaiming inventorship,
 but, if submitted, a disclaimer by all other joint inventors should be considered
 by the examiner. *In re DeBaun,* 687 F.2d 459, 214 USPQ 933 (CCPA
 1982) (Declaration submitted by DeBaun stated that he was the inventor of subject
 matter disclosed in the U.S. patent reference of DeBaun and Noll. Exhibits were
 attached to the declaration showing conception and included drawings DeBaun had
 prepared and given to counsel for purposes of preparing the application which
 issued as the reference patent. The court held that, even though the evidence was
 not sufficient to antedate the prior art patent under **[37 CFR
 1.131](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)**, diligence and/or reduction to practice was not
 required to show DeBaun invented the subject matter. Declarant’s exhibits and
 statement that he conceived the invention first was enough to overcome the
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection.). 
 

**II.** **CLAIMING OF INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OR SUBCOMBINATIONS IN A COMBINATION CLAIM
 OF THE REFERENCE DOES NOT ITSELF ESTABLISH THAT THE INVENTOR OR AT LEAST ONE
 JOINT INVENTOR INVENTED THOSE ELEMENTS**The existence of combination claims in a reference is not
 evidence that the inventor or at least one joint inventor invented the individual
 elements or subcombinations included if the elements and subcombinations are not
 separately claimed apart from the combination. *In re DeBaun,*
 687 F.2d 459, 214 USPQ 933 (CCPA 1982) (citing *In re Facius,*
 408 F.2d 1396, 1406, 161 USPQ 294, 301 (CCPA 1969)).
 


See also *In re Mathews,* 408 F.2d 1393, 161
 USPQ 276 (CCPA 1969) (On September 15, 1961, Dewey filed an application disclosing
 and claiming a time delay protective device for an electric circuit. In disclosing
 the invention, Dewey completely described, but did not claim, a "gating means 19"
 invented by Mathews which was usable in the protective device. Dewey and Mathews
 were coworkers at General Electric Company, the assignee. Mathews filed his
 application on March 7, 1963, before the Dewey patent issued but almost 18 months
 after its filing. The Mathews application disclosed that "one illustration of a
 circuit embodying the present invention is shown in copending patent application
 S.N. 138,476-Dewey." The examiner used Dewey to reject all the Mathews claims
 under **[pre-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. In response, Mathews submitted an
 affidavit by Dewey under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)**. In the
 affidavit, Dewey stated that he did not invent the gating means 19 but had learned
 of the gating means through Mathews and that GE attorneys had advised that the
 gating means be disclosed in Dewey’s application to comply with **[35 U.S.C.
 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first paragraph. The examiner argued that the only way
 to overcome a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection was by submitting an
 affidavit or declaration under **[37 CFR 1.131](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** to antedate the
 filing date of the reference. The court reversed the rejection, holding that the
 totality of the evidence on record showed that Dewey derived his knowledge from
 Mathews who is "the original, first and sole inventor.").
 



, 
# 2136.05(a) Antedating a Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
 Reference [R-10.2019]


When a prior U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or
 international application publication is not a statutory bar, a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection can be overcome by antedating the filing date
 (see **[MPEP §
 2136.03](s2136.html#d0e205924)** regarding critical reference date of
 **[pre‑AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** prior art) of the reference by submitting an
 affidavit or declaration under **[37 CFR 1.131](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)**. The filing date of
 a **[pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** reference can also be antedated by establishing priority
 to, or the benefit of, the filing date of an earlier application under
 **[35 U.S.C.
 119](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)** or **[35 U.S.C. 120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**. 
 

**I.** **AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION UNDER 37
 CFR 1.131**An affidavit or declaration under
 **[37 CFR
 1.131(a)](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** can overcome a prior art rejection under
 **[pre‑AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** by proving invention of the claimed subject
 matter by the inventor or at least one joint inventor prior to the effective date
 of the reference relied upon in the rejection.
 


When the claims of the reference U.S. patent or
 U.S. patent application publication and the application are directed to the same
 invention or are obvious variants, an affidavit or declaration under
 **[37 CFR
 1.131(a)](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** is not an acceptable method of overcoming the
 rejection. Under these circumstances, the examiner must determine whether a double
 patenting rejection or interference is appropriate. If there is a common assignee
 or inventor between the application and patent, a double patenting rejection must
 be made. See **[MPEP §
 804](s804.html#d0e98894)**. Note that a terminal disclaimer does not overcome a
 **[pre‑AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** rejection. See, e.g., *In re
 Bartfeld,* 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If there is
 no common assignee or inventor and the rejection under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** is the only possible rejection, the examiner must
 determine whether an interference should be declared. See **[MPEP Chapter
 2300](mpep-2300.html#d0e237627)** for more information regarding interferences.
 


For information on the required contents of a **[37 CFR
 1.131](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** affidavit or declaration and the situations in which
 such affidavits and declarations are permitted, see **[MPEP § 715](s715.html#d0e89737)***et seq.*


An affidavit or declaration under
 **[37 CFR
 1.131](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** is not appropriate if the reference describes an
 inventor's or at least one joint inventor's own work. In this case, applicant must
 submit an affidavit or declaration under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)**. See
 **[MPEP § 2136.05(b)](s2136.html#ch2100_d2c183_211c7_5e)** for more information concerning the
 requirements of **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)** affidavits and declarations. 
 

**II.** **ESTABLISHING PRIORITY TO, OR THE
 BENEFIT OF, AN EARLIER FILING DATE**A rejection based on **[pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302407)** can be overcome by:
 


* (A) Submitting a claim to priority under
 **[35
 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302921)** within the time period set in
 **[37
 CFR 1.55](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e319215)**:
* + (1)
		- (a) for applications filed on or after
		 September 16, 2012, by filing a corrected application data sheet
		 under **[37 CFR 1.76](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e320348)**
		 which identifies a prior foreign application in accordance with
		 **[37 CFR 1.55](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e319215)**,
		 or
		- (b) for applications filed prior to
		 September 16, 2012, by filing a corrected application data sheet
		 under **[37 CFR 1.76](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e320348)**
		 which identifies a prior foreign application in accordance with
		 **[37 CFR 1.55](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e319215)**
		 or by identifying the prior foreign application in the oath or
		 declaration under **[pre-AIA 37 CFR
		 1.63](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e319759)**,
	and
	+ (2) by establishing that the prior foreign
	 application satisfies the enablement and written description
	 requirements of **[35 U.S.C. 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824912)**
	 (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012), or
	 **[35 U.S.C. 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first paragraph (for
	 applications filed prior to September 16, 2012); or filing a grantable
	 petition to accept an unintentionally delayed priority claim under
	 **[37 CFR 1.55](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e319215)**. See
	 **[MPEP §§ 213 - 216](s213.html#ch200_d1ff72_162b8_108)**.
	 The foreign priority filing date must antedate the reference and be
	 perfected. The filing date of the priority document is not perfected
	 unless applicant has filed a certified priority document in the
	 application (and an English language translation, if the document is
	 not in English) (see **[37 CFR 1.55](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e319215)**);
	 and/or
* (B) Submitting a benefit claim under
 **[35
 U.S.C. 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302951)** or **[120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**, within the time periods set in **[37 CFR
 1.78](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e320662)**:
	+ (1)
		- (a) for applications filed on or after
		 September 16, 2012, filing an application data sheet under
		 **[37 CFR 1.76](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#plt_d0e320348)**
		 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in
		 accordance with **[37 CFR 1.78](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e320662)**,
		 or
		- (b) for applications filed prior to
		 September 16, 2012, amending the specification of the
		 application to contain a specific reference to a prior
		 application or by filing an application data sheet under
		 **[37 CFR 1.76](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e320348)**
		 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in
		 accordance with **[37 CFR
		 1.78](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e320662)**,
	and
	+ (2) establishing that the prior application
	 satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of
	 **[35 U.S.C. 112(a)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824912)**
	 (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012), or
	 **[35 U.S.C. 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first paragraph (for
	 applications filed prior to September 16, 2012) or filing a grantable
	 petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim under
	 **[37 CFR 1.78](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e320662)**.


The filing date of a prior application cannot be
 used to antedate a reference if the application at issue is not entitled to claim
 the benefit of the prior application under **[35 U.S.C. 119(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302951)**,
 **[120](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303023313)**, **[121](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303040912)**, or **[365(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307053)**.
 *In re Costello,* 717 F.2d 1346, 219 USPQ 389 (Fed. Cir.
 1983).
 


, 
# 2136.05(b) Showing The Reference Is Describing An
 Inventor's Or At Least One Joint Inventor's Own Work [R-10.2019]


A rejection based on **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** can be
 overcome by filing an affidavit or declaration under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)**
 showing that the reference invention is not by "another." "The fact that an
 application has named a different inventive entity than a patent does not necessarily
 make that patent prior art." *Applied Materials Inc. v. Gemini Research
 Corp.,* 835 F.2d 279, 15 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The issue turns on
 what the evidence of record shows as to who invented the
 subject matter. *In re Whittle,* 454 F.2d 1193, 1195, 172 USPQ 535,
 537 (CCPA 1972). In fact, even if an inventor's or at least one joint inventor's work
 was publicly disclosed prior to the patent application, the inventor's or at least
 one joint inventor's own work may not be used against the application subject to
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** unless there is a time bar under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(b)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. *In re DeBaun,* 687 F.2d 459, 214 USPQ
 933 (CCPA 1982) (citing *In re Katz,* 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14
 (CCPA 1982)). However, an affidavit or declaration under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)**
 that is only a naked assertion of inventorship and that fails to provide any context,
 explanation or evidence to support that assertion is insufficient to show that the
 relied-upon subject matter was the inventor’s own work. See *EmeraChem
 Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,* 859 F.3d 1341, 123 USPQ2d
 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding that a declaration submitted by inventor Campbell
 insufficient to establish that he and Guth (now deceased) were inventors of the
 subject matter disclosed in a patent naming Campbell, Guth, Danziger, and Padron
 because "[n]othing in the declaration itself, or in addition to the declaration,
 provides any context, explanation, or evidence to lend credence to the inventor's
 bare assertion" and more than twenty years had passed since the alleged events
 occurred. *Id.* at 1345; 123 USPQ2d at 1149.). Therefore, when the
 unclaimed subject matter of a reference is an inventor's or at least one joint
 inventor's own invention, a *prima facie* case based on the patent,
 U.S. patent application publication, or international application publication, may be
 overcome by showing that the disclosure is a description of the inventor's or at
 least one joint inventor's own previous work. Such a showing can be made by proving
 that the inventor(s) of the U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or the
 international application publication, was associated with applicant (e.g., same
 assignee) and learned of the inventor's or at least one joint inventor's invention
 from the inventor or at least one joint inventor directly or indirectly. *In
 re Mathews,* 408 F.2d 1393, 161 USPQ 276 (CCPA 1969). 
 


In the situation where one application is first filed
 naming sole inventor X and then a later application is filed naming joint inventors X
 & Y, it must be proven that the joint invention was made first, was thereafter
 described in the sole inventor's patent, or was thereafter described in the sole
 inventor's U.S. patent application publication or international application
 publication, and then the joint application was filed. *In re Land,*
 368 F.2d 866, 151 USPQ 621 (CCPA 1966).
 


In *In re Land,* separate U.S. patents to Rogers
 and to Land were used to reject a joint application to Rogers and Land under
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**/**[103](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)**. The inventors worked for the
 same company (Polaroid) and in the same laboratory. All the patents flowed from the
 same research. In addition, the patent applications were prepared by the same
 attorneys, were interrelated and contained cross-references to each other. The court
 affirmed the rejection because (1) the inventive entities of the patents (one to
 Rogers and one to Land) were different from the inventive entity of the joint
 application (Rogers and Land) and (2) Land and Rogers brought their knowledge of
 their individual work with them when they made the joint invention. There was no
 indication that the portions of the references relied on disclosed anything they did
 jointly. Nor was there a showing that what they did jointly
 was done before the filing of the reference patent applications.
 


See also *In re Carreira,* 532 F.2d 1356, 189 USPQ
 461 (CCPA 1976) (The examiner rejected claims to a joint application to Carreira,
 Kyrakakis, Solodar, and Labana under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** and 103
 in view of a U.S. patent issued to Tulagin and Carreira or a patent issued to Clark.
 The applicants submitted declarations under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)** by Tulagin and Clark
 in which each declarant stated he was "not the inventor of the use of compounds
 having a hydroxyl group in a position ortho to an azo linkage." The court held that
 these statements were vague and inconclusive because the declarants did not disclose
 the use of this generic compound but rather species of this generic compound in their
 patents and it was the species which met the claims. The declaration that each did
 not invent the use of the generic compound does not establish that Tulagin and Clark
 did not invent the use of the species.) 
 


**[MPEP §
 715.01(a)](s715.html#d0e90674)**, **[§ 715.01(c)](s715.html#d0e90779)**, and
 **[§
 716.10](s716.html#d0e93797)** set forth more information pertaining to the
 contents and uses of affidavits and declarations under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)**
 for antedating references. See **[MPEP § 2146](s2146.html#d0e213206)**for information
 pertaining to rejections under **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**/**[103](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)** and the applicability of
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 103(c)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450)**.
 

**I.** **APPLICANT NEED NOT SHOW DILIGENCE OR REDUCTION TO PRACTICE WHEN THE SUBJECT
 MATTER DISCLOSED IN THE REFERENCE IS APPLICANT’S OWN WORK**When the reference reflects an inventor's or at least one joint
 inventor's own work, evidence of diligence or reduction to practice does not need
 to be provided in order to establish that the inventor or at least one joint
 inventor invented the subject matter disclosed in the reference. A showing that
 the reference disclosure arose from an inventor's or at least one joint inventor's
 work coupled with a showing of conception by the inventor or at least one joint
 inventor before the filing date of the reference will overcome the
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection. The showing can be made by
 submission of an affidavit under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)** by the inventor
 or at least one joint inventor who invented the subject matter. The other joint
 inventors, if applicable, need not submit an affidavit disclaiming inventorship,
 but, if submitted, a disclaimer by all other joint inventors should be considered
 by the examiner. *In re DeBaun,* 687 F.2d 459, 214 USPQ 933 (CCPA
 1982) (Declaration submitted by DeBaun stated that he was the inventor of subject
 matter disclosed in the U.S. patent reference of DeBaun and Noll. Exhibits were
 attached to the declaration showing conception and included drawings DeBaun had
 prepared and given to counsel for purposes of preparing the application which
 issued as the reference patent. The court held that, even though the evidence was
 not sufficient to antedate the prior art patent under **[37 CFR
 1.131](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)**, diligence and/or reduction to practice was not
 required to show DeBaun invented the subject matter. Declarant’s exhibits and
 statement that he conceived the invention first was enough to overcome the
 **[pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection.). 
 

**II.** **CLAIMING OF INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OR SUBCOMBINATIONS IN A COMBINATION CLAIM
 OF THE REFERENCE DOES NOT ITSELF ESTABLISH THAT THE INVENTOR OR AT LEAST ONE
 JOINT INVENTOR INVENTED THOSE ELEMENTS**The existence of combination claims in a reference is not
 evidence that the inventor or at least one joint inventor invented the individual
 elements or subcombinations included if the elements and subcombinations are not
 separately claimed apart from the combination. *In re DeBaun,*
 687 F.2d 459, 214 USPQ 933 (CCPA 1982) (citing *In re Facius,*
 408 F.2d 1396, 1406, 161 USPQ 294, 301 (CCPA 1969)).
 


See also *In re Mathews,* 408 F.2d 1393, 161
 USPQ 276 (CCPA 1969) (On September 15, 1961, Dewey filed an application disclosing
 and claiming a time delay protective device for an electric circuit. In disclosing
 the invention, Dewey completely described, but did not claim, a "gating means 19"
 invented by Mathews which was usable in the protective device. Dewey and Mathews
 were coworkers at General Electric Company, the assignee. Mathews filed his
 application on March 7, 1963, before the Dewey patent issued but almost 18 months
 after its filing. The Mathews application disclosed that "one illustration of a
 circuit embodying the present invention is shown in copending patent application
 S.N. 138,476-Dewey." The examiner used Dewey to reject all the Mathews claims
 under **[pre-AIA
 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)**. In response, Mathews submitted an
 affidavit by Dewey under **[37 CFR 1.132](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552)**. In the
 affidavit, Dewey stated that he did not invent the gating means 19 but had learned
 of the gating means through Mathews and that GE attorneys had advised that the
 gating means be disclosed in Dewey’s application to comply with **[35 U.S.C.
 112](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824)**, first paragraph. The examiner argued that the only way
 to overcome a **[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)](mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383)** rejection was by submitting an
 affidavit or declaration under **[37 CFR 1.131](mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504)** to antedate the
 filing date of the reference. The court reversed the rejection, holding that the
 totality of the evidence on record showed that Dewey derived his knowledge from
 Mathews who is "the original, first and sole inventor.").
 


]