2 semiconductor apps: one predates reference, other post-dates it

From Patentbarquestions

9. Smith’s first invention is a new method of fabricating a semiconductor capacitor in a

dynamic random access memory (DRAM) cell. Smith filed a first patent application on

December 13, 2001 disclosing and claiming the first invention. Smith’s later, second invention,

is an improved semiconductor capacitor in a DRAM cell and a method of making it. Smith filed

a second application on December 16, 2002, claiming the benefit of the filing date of the

copending first application. The second application contains claims 1-20, and a specification

that provides support for the claimed subject matter in compliance with 35 USC 112, first

paragraph. In the second application, claims 1-10 are drawn to Smith’s first invention, and

claims 11-20 are drawn to Smith’s second invention. The primary examiner found a non-patent

printed publication authored by Jones published on February 4, 2002. The article discloses the

both of Smith’s inventions. Which of the following courses of action by the examiner would be

in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?

(A) The examiner can reject claims 1-20 in the second application using the article

because the publication date of the article is earlier than the filing date of the

second application.

(B) The examiner cannot reject any of the claims in the second application using the

article because the second application claims the benefit of the filing date of the

first application.

(C) The examiner can reject claims 1-20 in the second application using the article

because the second application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of

the first application since the second application was filed more than one year

from the filing date of the first application.

(D) The examiner can reject claims 1-10, but cannot reject claims 11-20 in the second

application because the first application did not disclose the improved capacitor

set forth in claims 11-20.

(E) The examiner cannot reject claims 1-10, but can reject claims 11-20 in the second

application because the first application did not disclose an improved capacitor set

forth in claims 11-20.

9. ANSWER: The most correct answer is (E). See MPEP § 201.11, under the heading “VI. When Not Entitled To Benefit Earlier Of Filing Date, ” states “[a]ny claim in a continuation-in-part application which is directed solely to subject matter adequately disclosed under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent nonprovisional application. However, if a claim in a continuation-in-part application recites a feature which was not disclosed or adequately supported by a proper disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application, but which was first introduced or adequately supported in the continuation-in-part application such a claim is entitled only to the filing date of the continuation-in-part application. See In re Chu, 66. F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995) and Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” Accordingly, claims 1-10 are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application, but claims 11-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application because claims 11-20 recite an improved capacitor, which was not disclosed in the first application. Claims 1-10 have an effective filing date earlier than the publication date of the article. Claims 11-20 have a filing date later than the publication date of the article. For 35 U.S.C. 102(a) to apply, the reference must have a publication date earlier in time than the effective filing date of the application. See MPEP 706.02(a), paragraph “III. 35 U.S.C. 102(a).” Thus, answers (A)-(D) are incorrect.