{"section":{"filename":"s2134.html","chapter":"2100","section_number":"2134","title":"Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c)","revision_tag":"R-10.2019","bytes":66711,"sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a","subsection_count":0,"max_depth":0,"subsections":[]},"quality":"structured","cited_authorities":{"file_section":"2134","cases":[{"key":"case:437f.2d486","slug":"in-re-gibbs","short_name":"In re Gibbs","canonical_citation":"In re Gibbs, 437 F.2d 486, 168 USPQ 578 (CCPA 1971)","decision_year":1971,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Abandonment under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c) requires that the inventor intend to abandon the invention; such intent may be implied from the inventor's conduct but will not be lightly imputed.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":["abandonment requires inventor intent to abandon; intent may be implied from conduct","inference of abandonment from unclaimed disclosure is rebuttable before a statutory bar"]},{"key":"case:20uspq2d1479","slug":"ex-parte-dunne","short_name":"Ex parte Dunne","canonical_citation":"Ex parte Dunne, 20 USPQ2d 1479 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991)","decision_year":1991,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"Actual abandonment under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c) requires that the inventor intend to abandon the invention; such intent will not be imputed, and every reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of the inventor.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["intent to abandon not imputed; every reasonable doubt resolved for the inventor"]},{"key":"case:118u.s.22","slug":"u-s-rifle-cartridge-co-v-whitney-arms-co","short_name":"U.S. Rifle & Cartridge Co. v. Whitney Arms Co.","canonical_citation":"U.S. Rifle & Cartridge Co. v. Whitney Arms Co., 118 U.S. 22 (1886)","decision_year":1886,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":"Abandonment of an invention requires a deliberate, though not necessarily express, surrender of patent rights; the inventor must intend a dedication to the public, which may be express or implied from the inventor's actions or inactions.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["abandonment requires deliberate surrender; inventor must intend dedication to the public"]},{"key":"case:94u.s.92","slug":"consolidatedfruit-jar-co-v-wright","short_name":"ConsolidatedFruit-Jar Co. v. Wright","canonical_citation":"ConsolidatedFruit-Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U.S. 92 (1876)","decision_year":1876,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":"Even a single sale or offer to sell the invention may bar patentability under the on-sale bar; separately, abandonment through dedication to the public may be express or implied from the inventor's actions or inactions.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["dedication to the public may be express or implied by inventor actions or inactions"]},{"key":"case:148f.2d212","slug":"lovell-v-peer","short_name":"Lovell v. Peer","canonical_citation":"Lovell v. Peer, 148 F.2d 212, 65 USPQ 127 (CCPA 1945)","decision_year":1945,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Delay alone is not sufficient to infer the requisite intent to abandon an invention; abandonment requires an intended dedication to the public, whether express or implied.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["delay alone is insufficient to infer the requisite intent to abandon"]},{"key":"case:194uspq423","slug":"moore-v-united-states","short_name":"Moore v. United States","canonical_citation":"Moore v. United States, 194 USPQ 423 (Ct. Cl. 1977)","decision_year":1977,"court":"Ct. Cl.","holding_summary":"An inventor's drafting and retention of patent applications in his own files indicates an intent to retain the invention; delay in filing the applications alone is not sufficient to establish abandonment.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["retaining drafted applications shows intent to retain invention despite filing delay"]},{"key":"case:252f.supp.989","slug":"davis-harvester-co-inc-v-long-mfg-co","short_name":"Davis Harvester Co., Inc. v. Long Mfg. Co.","canonical_citation":"Davis Harvester Co., Inc. v. Long Mfg. Co., 252 F. Supp. 989, 149 USPQ 420 (E.D. N.C. 1966)","decision_year":1966,"court":"E.D.N.C.","holding_summary":"An inventor who does nothing to develop or patent the invention, ridicules another's development efforts, and shows active interest only after another's successful marketing has abandoned the invention.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["inaction plus ridicule then late interest after another success shows abandonment"]},{"key":"case:381f.supp.1071","slug":"petersen-v-fee-intl-ltd","short_name":"Petersen v. Fee Int’l, Ltd.","canonical_citation":"Petersen v. Fee Int’l, Ltd., 381 F. Supp. 1071, 182 USPQ 264 (W.D. Okla. 1974)","decision_year":1974,"court":"W.D. Okla.","holding_summary":"Absent evidence of expressed intent or conduct by the inventor to abandon the invention, delay in reapplying for a patent after abandonment of a previous application does not constitute abandonment under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c).","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["delay in reapplying after abandonment is not abandonment absent intent or conduct"]},{"key":"case:774f.2d1082","slug":"panduit-corp-v-dennison-mfg-co-1985","short_name":"Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.","canonical_citation":"Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 774 F.2d 1082, 227 USPQ 337 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Lapse of time bars a patent only in a priority contest involving abandonment, suppression, or concealment; copying by an infringer who failed after years of effort to design a similar product is persuasive evidence of nonobviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["lapse of time bars a patent only in a priority contest with abandonment/suppression/concealment"]}],"statutes":[{"key":"us_usc:35:102","slug":"35-usc-102","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102","mentions":8},{"key":"us_usc:35:100","slug":"35-usc-100","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 100","mentions":1}],"cross_references":[{"key":"mpep:2138","section_number":"2138","title":"Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:2150","section_number":"2150","title":"Examination Guidelines for 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 as Amended by the First Inventor To File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:2159","section_number":"2159","title":"Applicability Date Provisions and Determining Whether an Application Is Subject to the First Inventor To File Provisions of the AIA","exists":true,"mentions":1}],"form_paragraphs":[]},"structured_data":{"nodes":[{"id":"pb_j6j2lmwa","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_j6j2lmwa","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch2100_d222e6_18e3d_2be\"><i>[Editor Note: This MPEP section is <b id=\"\">not applicable</b> to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d917_1bef1_2b\">35 U.S.C. 100 (note)</a></b>. See <b><a href=\"s2159.html#ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd\">MPEP § 2159</a></b> et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and <b><a href=\"s2150.html#ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e\">MPEP § 2150</a></b> et seq. for examination of applications subject to those provisions.]</i></p>","rendered_text_plain":"[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). See MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP § 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to those provisions.]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18e3d_2be","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_r6ovktnn","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"pb_vsidsysj","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_vsidsysj","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e59327\">Under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c)</a></b>, abandonment of the “invention” (as distinguished from abandonment of an application) results in loss of right to a patent.</p>","rendered_text_plain":"Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c), abandonment of the “invention” (as distinguished from abandonment of an application) results in loss of right to a patent.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e59327","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_r6ovktnn"},{"id":"li_bjbck57q","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_bjbck57q","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<li id=\"d0e205182\" class=\"nobull\">(c) he has abandoned the invention.</li>","rendered_text_plain":"(c) he has abandoned the invention.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205182","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"enumerator_label":"(c)","enumerator_ordinal":0,"parent_list_id":"ls_lt7gohtn"},{"id":"ls_lt7gohtn","node_type":"list","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/ls_lt7gohtn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205182","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"enumerator_style":"alpha_lower","nesting_depth":1,"host_section_id":"se_r6ovktnn","item_ids":["li_bjbck57q"],"parent_list_item_id":null},{"id":"sb_fhtxdp23","node_type":"statutory_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/sb_fhtxdp23","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205172","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","citation_title_text":"Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102","heading":"Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.","body_list_id":"ls_lt7gohtn","host_section_id":"se_r6ovktnn"},{"id":"pb_xky3p4mz","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_xky3p4mz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e205176\">A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -</p>","rendered_text_plain":"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205176","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_r6ovktnn"},{"id":"pb_dhcv2qwd","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_dhcv2qwd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p class=\"excludedText\">*****</p>","rendered_text_plain":"*****","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205172/p.0","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"kind":"excluded_text","host_section_id":"se_r6ovktnn","tags":["edit_history:excluded"]},{"id":"pb_4n2snvyw","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_4n2snvyw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p class=\"excludedText\">*****</p>","rendered_text_plain":"*****","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205172/p.1","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"kind":"excluded_text","host_section_id":"se_r6ovktnn","tags":["edit_history:excluded"]},{"id":"st_qlhihx44","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_qlhihx44","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"100","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 100"},{"id":"se_tda74dwk","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_tda74dwk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"stub-2159","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2159","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2159","section_number":"2159","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2159","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_4llbfkqe","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_4llbfkqe","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"stub-2150","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2150","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2150","section_number":"2150","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2150","children_ids":[]},{"id":"pb_ef4fwac4","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ef4fwac4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b id=\"\">I.</b><b id=\"\"> UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102(c), AN ABANDONMENT MUST BE INTENTIONAL</b>","rendered_text_plain":"I. UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102(c), AN ABANDONMENT MUST BE INTENTIONAL","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205172/b.0","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_r6ovktnn","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"I. UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102(c), AN ABANDONMENT MUST BE INTENTIONAL"},{"id":"pb_nuqwqfle","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_nuqwqfle","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e205192\">“Actual abandonment under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c)</a></b> requires that the inventor intend to abandon the invention, and intent can be implied from the inventor’s conduct with respect to the invention. <i>In re Gibbs,</i> 437 F.2d 486, 168 USPQ 578 (CCPA 1971). Such intent to abandon the invention will not be imputed, and every reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of the inventor.” <i>Ex parte Dunne,</i> 20 USPQ2d 1479 (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1991).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"“Actual abandonment under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c) requires that the inventor intend to abandon the invention, and intent can be implied from the inventor’s conduct with respect to the invention. In re Gibbs, 437 F.2d 486, 168 USPQ 578 (CCPA 1971). Such intent to abandon the invention will not be imputed, and every reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of the inventor.” Ex parte Dunne, 20 USPQ2d 1479 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205192","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_r6ovktnn"},{"id":"cs_o7mueqt2","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_o7mueqt2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Gibbs, 437 F.2d 486, 168 USPQ 578 (CCPA 1971)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"short_name":"In re Gibbs","canonical_citation":"In re Gibbs, 437 F.2d 486, 168 USPQ 578 (CCPA 1971)","all_citations":["437 F.2d 486","168 USPQ 578"],"decision_year":1971,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_rxtlz3iy","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_rxtlz3iy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Dunne, 20 USPQ2d 1479 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"short_name":"Ex parte Dunne","canonical_citation":"Ex parte Dunne, 20 USPQ2d 1479 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991)","all_citations":["20 USPQ2d 1479"],"decision_year":1991,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_wyjw63sw","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_wyjw63sw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b id=\"\">II.</b><b id=\"\"> DELAY IN MAKING FIRST APPLICATION</b>","rendered_text_plain":"II. DELAY IN MAKING FIRST APPLICATION","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205172/b.2","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_r6ovktnn","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"II. DELAY IN MAKING FIRST APPLICATION"},{"id":"pb_h3teybpo","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_h3teybpo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e205208\">Abandonment under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c)</a></b> requires a deliberate, though not necessarily express, surrender of any rights to a patent. To abandon the invention the inventor must intend a dedication to the public. Such dedication may be either express or implied, by actions or inactions of the inventor. <i>U.S. Rifle &amp; Cartridge Co. v. Whitney Arms Co.,</i> 118 U.S. 22, 25 (1886); <i>Consolidated Fruit–Jar Co. v. Wright,</i> 94 U.S. 92, 96 (1876). Delay alone is not sufficient to infer the requisite intent to abandon. <i>Lovell v. Peer,</i> 148 F.2d 212, 214, 65 USPQ 127, 129 (CCPA 1945). See also <i>Moore v. United</i><i>States,</i> 194 USPQ 423, 428 (Ct. Cl. 1977) (The drafting and retention in his own files of two patent applications by inventor indicates an intent to retain his invention; delay in filing the applications was not sufficient to establish abandonment); but see <i>Davis Harvester Co., Inc. v. Long Mfg. Co.,</i> 252 F. Supp. 989, 1009-10, 149 USPQ 420, 435-436 (E.D. N.C. 1966) (Where the inventor does nothing over a period of time to develop or patent his invention, ridicules the attempts of another to develop that invention and begins to show active interest in promoting and developing his invention only after successful marketing by another of a device embodying that invention, the inventor has abandoned his invention under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c)</a></b>.).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"Abandonment under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c) requires a deliberate, though not necessarily express, surrender of any rights to a patent. To abandon the invention the inventor must intend a dedication to the public. Such dedication may be either express or implied, by actions or inactions of the inventor. U.S. Rifle & Cartridge Co. v. Whitney Arms Co., 118 U.S. 22, 25 (1886); Consolidated Fruit–Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U.S. 92, 96 (1876). Delay alone is not sufficient to infer the requisite intent to abandon. Lovell v. Peer, 148 F.2d 212, 214, 65 USPQ 127, 129 (CCPA 1945). See also Moore v. UnitedStates, 194 USPQ 423, 428 (Ct. Cl. 1977) (The drafting and retention in his own files of two patent applications by inventor indicates an intent to retain his invention; delay in filing the applications was not sufficient to establish abandonment); but see Davis Harvester Co., Inc. v. Long Mfg. Co., 252 F. Supp. 989, 1009-10, 149 USPQ 420, 435-436 (E.D. N.C. 1966) (Where the inventor does nothing over a period of time to develop or patent his invention, ridicules the attempts of another to develop that invention and begins to show active interest in promoting and developing his invention only after successful marketing by another of a device embodying that invention, the inventor has abandoned his invention under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c).).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205208","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_r6ovktnn"},{"id":"cs_iuxhqjik","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_iuxhqjik","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"U.S. Rifle & Cartridge Co. v. Whitney Arms Co., 118 U.S. 22 (1886)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"short_name":"U.S. Rifle & Cartridge Co. v. Whitney Arms Co.","canonical_citation":"U.S. Rifle & Cartridge Co. v. Whitney Arms Co., 118 U.S. 22 (1886)","all_citations":["118 U.S. 22"],"decision_year":1886,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_f27rvzcv","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_f27rvzcv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Consolidated Fruit–Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U.S. 92 (1876)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"short_name":"Consolidated Fruit–Jar Co. v. Wright","canonical_citation":"Consolidated Fruit–Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U.S. 92 (1876)","all_citations":["94 U.S. 92"],"decision_year":1876,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_exnmttp7","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_exnmttp7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Lovell v. Peer, 148 F.2d 212, 65 USPQ 127 (CCPA 1945)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"short_name":"Lovell v. Peer","canonical_citation":"Lovell v. Peer, 148 F.2d 212, 65 USPQ 127 (CCPA 1945)","all_citations":["148 F.2d 212","65 USPQ 127"],"decision_year":1945,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_7xgsrang","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_7xgsrang","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Moore v. United States, 194 USPQ 423 (Ct. Cl. 1977)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"short_name":"Moore v. United States","canonical_citation":"Moore v. United States, 194 USPQ 423 (Ct. Cl. 1977)","all_citations":["194 USPQ 423"],"decision_year":1977,"court":"Ct. Cl.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_api4yezj","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_api4yezj","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Davis Harvester Co., Inc. v. Long Mfg. Co., 252 F. Supp. 989, 149 USPQ 420 (E.D. N.C. 1966)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"short_name":"Davis Harvester Co., Inc. v. Long Mfg. Co.","canonical_citation":"Davis Harvester Co., Inc. v. Long Mfg. Co., 252 F. Supp. 989, 149 USPQ 420 (E.D. N.C. 1966)","all_citations":["252 F. Supp. 989","149 USPQ 420"],"decision_year":1966,"court":"E.D.N.C.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_fw6rkhpz","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_fw6rkhpz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b id=\"\">III.</b><b id=\"\"> DELAY IN REAPPLYING FOR PATENT AFTER ABANDONMENT OF PREVIOUS PATENT APPLICATION</b>","rendered_text_plain":"III. DELAY IN REAPPLYING FOR PATENT AFTER ABANDONMENT OF PREVIOUS PATENT APPLICATION","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205172/b.4","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_r6ovktnn","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"III. DELAY IN REAPPLYING FOR PATENT AFTER ABANDONMENT OF PREVIOUS PATENT APPLICATION"},{"id":"pb_tz5sixjn","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_tz5sixjn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e205230\">Where there is no evidence of expressed intent or conduct by inventor to abandon the invention, delay in reapplying for patent after abandonment of a previous application does not constitute abandonment under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c)</a></b>. <i>Petersen v. Fee Int’l, Ltd.,</i> 381 F. Supp. 1071, 182 USPQ 264 (W.D. Okla. 1974).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"Where there is no evidence of expressed intent or conduct by inventor to abandon the invention, delay in reapplying for patent after abandonment of a previous application does not constitute abandonment under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c). Petersen v. Fee Int’l, Ltd., 381 F. Supp. 1071, 182 USPQ 264 (W.D. Okla. 1974).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205230","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_r6ovktnn"},{"id":"cs_2vflz2kc","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_2vflz2kc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Petersen v. Fee Int’l, Ltd., 381 F. Supp. 1071, 182 USPQ 264 (W.D. Okla. 1974)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"short_name":"Petersen v. Fee Int’l, Ltd.","canonical_citation":"Petersen v. Fee Int’l, Ltd., 381 F. Supp. 1071, 182 USPQ 264 (W.D. Okla. 1974)","all_citations":["381 F. Supp. 1071","182 USPQ 264"],"decision_year":1974,"court":"W.D. Okla.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_kz6nptp4","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_kz6nptp4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b id=\"\">IV.</b><b id=\"\"> DISCLOSURE WITHOUT CLAIMING IN A PRIOR ISSUED PATENT</b>","rendered_text_plain":"IV. DISCLOSURE WITHOUT CLAIMING IN A PRIOR ISSUED PATENT","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205172/b.6","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_r6ovktnn","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"IV. DISCLOSURE WITHOUT CLAIMING IN A PRIOR ISSUED PATENT"},{"id":"pb_s4dynmbc","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_s4dynmbc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e205243\">Any inference of abandonment (i.e., intent to dedicate to the public) of subject matter disclosed but not claimed in a previously issued patent is rebuttable by an application filed at any time before a statutory bar arises. Accordingly, a rejection of a claim of a patent application under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c)</a></b> predicated solely on the issuance of a patent which discloses the subject matter of the claim in the application without claiming it would be improper, regardless of whether there is copendency between the application at issue and the application which issued as the patent. <i>In re Gibbs,</i> 437 F.2d 486, 168 USPQ 578 (CCPA 1971).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"Any inference of abandonment (i.e., intent to dedicate to the public) of subject matter disclosed but not claimed in a previously issued patent is rebuttable by an application filed at any time before a statutory bar arises. Accordingly, a rejection of a claim of a patent application under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c) predicated solely on the issuance of a patent which discloses the subject matter of the claim in the application without claiming it would be improper, regardless of whether there is copendency between the application at issue and the application which issued as the patent. In re Gibbs, 437 F.2d 486, 168 USPQ 578 (CCPA 1971).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205243","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_r6ovktnn"},{"id":"pb_v2sswjfd","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_v2sswjfd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b id=\"\">V.</b><b id=\"\"> ONLY WHEN THERE IS A PRIORITY CONTEST CAN A LAPSE OF TIME BAR A PATENT</b>","rendered_text_plain":"V. ONLY WHEN THERE IS A PRIORITY CONTEST CAN A LAPSE OF TIME BAR A PATENT","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205172/b.8","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_r6ovktnn","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"V. ONLY WHEN THERE IS A PRIORITY CONTEST CAN A LAPSE OF TIME BAR A PATENT"},{"id":"pb_msckzocy","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_msckzocy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e205256\">The mere lapse of time will not bar a patent. The only exception is when there is a priority contest under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)</a></b> and applicant abandons, suppresses or conceals the invention. <i>Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg.</i><i>Co.,</i> 774 F.2d 1082, 1101, 227 USPQ 337, 350 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Abandonment, suppression and concealment are treated by the courts under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)</a></b>. See <b><a href=\"s2138.html#d0e207478\">MPEP § 2138.03</a></b> for more information on this issue.</p>","rendered_text_plain":"The mere lapse of time will not bar a patent. The only exception is when there is a priority contest under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) and applicant abandons, suppresses or conceals the invention. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg.Co., 774 F.2d 1082, 1101, 227 USPQ 337, 350 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Abandonment, suppression and concealment are treated by the courts under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See MPEP § 2138.03 for more information on this issue.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205256","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_r6ovktnn"},{"id":"cs_j6gswzir","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_j6gswzir","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 774 F.2d 1082, 227 USPQ 337 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"short_name":"Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.","canonical_citation":"Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 774 F.2d 1082, 227 USPQ 337 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","all_citations":["774 F.2d 1082","227 USPQ 337"],"decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"st_eiprdrak","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_eiprdrak","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","subsection_path":["g"],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102(g)"},{"id":"se_o7zejr62","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_o7zejr62","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"stub-2138","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2138","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2138","section_number":"2138","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2138","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_r6ovktnn","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_r6ovktnn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205168","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2134","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2134","section_number":"2134","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c)","children_ids":["pb_j6j2lmwa","pb_vsidsysj","sb_fhtxdp23","pb_xky3p4mz","pb_dhcv2qwd","pb_4n2snvyw","pb_ef4fwac4","pb_nuqwqfle","pb_wyjw63sw","pb_h3teybpo","pb_fw6rkhpz","pb_tz5sixjn","pb_kz6nptp4","pb_s4dynmbc","pb_v2sswjfd","pb_msckzocy"],"revision_tag":"R-10.2019"}],"edges":[{"id":"e_cvrl5xxt","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_vsidsysj","target_id":"sb_fhtxdp23","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(c)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":14,"end":30},"pincite":"c"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e59327","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_gviqz3jr","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_j6j2lmwa","target_id":"st_qlhihx44","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 100","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":167,"end":180},"parenthetical":"note"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18e3d_2be","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_6nzrjhca","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_j6j2lmwa","target_id":"se_tda74dwk","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2159","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18e3d_2be","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_2c3qr4yl","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_j6j2lmwa","target_id":"se_4llbfkqe","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18e3d_2be","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_epowpp3u","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_nuqwqfle","target_id":"cs_o7mueqt2","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Gibbs, 437 F.2d 486, 168 USPQ 578 (CCPA 1971)","source_offset":{"start":196,"end":207},"proposition":"abandonment requires inventor intent to abandon; intent may be implied from conduct"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205192","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_moxsycue","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_nuqwqfle","target_id":"cs_rxtlz3iy","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Dunne, 20 USPQ2d 1479 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991)","source_offset":{"start":380,"end":394},"proposition":"intent to abandon not imputed; every reasonable doubt resolved for the inventor"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205192","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_bsxwrz4y","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_nuqwqfle","target_id":"sb_fhtxdp23","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(c)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":34,"end":50},"pincite":"c"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205192","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_kydtaoux","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_h3teybpo","target_id":"cs_iuxhqjik","properties":{"citation_text":"U.S. Rifle & Cartridge Co. v. Whitney Arms Co., 118 U.S. 22, 25 (1886)","source_offset":{"start":304,"end":350},"pincite":"25","proposition":"abandonment requires deliberate surrender; inventor must intend dedication to the public"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205208","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_hobvjagu","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_h3teybpo","target_id":"cs_f27rvzcv","properties":{"citation_text":"Consolidated Fruit–Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U.S. 92, 96 (1876)","source_offset":{"start":376,"end":412},"pincite":"96","proposition":"dedication to the public may be express or implied by inventor actions or inactions"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205208","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_mq3rymu6","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_h3teybpo","target_id":"cs_exnmttp7","properties":{"citation_text":"Lovell v. Peer, 148 F.2d 212, 214, 65 USPQ 127, 129 (CCPA 1945)","source_offset":{"start":509,"end":523},"pincite":"214","proposition":"delay alone is insufficient to infer the requisite intent to abandon"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205208","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_gcw65xpb","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_h3teybpo","target_id":"cs_7xgsrang","properties":{"citation_text":"Moore v. United States, 194 USPQ 423, 428 (Ct. Cl. 1977)","source_offset":{"start":583,"end":598},"pincite":"428","signal":"see_also","parenthetical":"The drafting and retention in his own files of two patent applications by inventor indicates an intent to retain his invention; delay in filing the applications was not sufficient to establish abandonment","proposition":"retaining drafted applications shows intent to retain invention despite filing delay"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205208","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_aaz6hc6b","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_h3teybpo","target_id":"cs_api4yezj","properties":{"citation_text":"Davis Harvester Co., Inc. v. Long Mfg. Co., 252 F. Supp. 989, 1009-10, 149 USPQ 420, 435-436 (E.D. N.C. 1966)","source_offset":{"start":855,"end":897},"pincite":"1009-10","signal":"but_see","parenthetical":"Where the inventor does nothing over a period of time to develop or patent his invention, ridicules the attempts of another to develop that invention and begins to show active interest in promoting and developing his invention only after successful marketing by another of a device embodying that invention, the inventor has abandoned his invention","proposition":"inaction plus ridicule then late interest after another success shows abandonment"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205208","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_xeu6qki7","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_h3teybpo","target_id":"sb_fhtxdp23","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(c)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":26,"end":42},"pincite":"c"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205208","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_ca66yg2l","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_h3teybpo","target_id":"sb_fhtxdp23","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(c)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":1329,"end":1345},"pincite":"c"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205208","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_tftt6aov","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tz5sixjn","target_id":"cs_2vflz2kc","properties":{"citation_text":"Petersen v. Fee Int'l, Ltd., 381 F. Supp. 1071, 182 USPQ 264 (W.D. Okla. 1974)","source_offset":{"start":235,"end":262},"proposition":"delay in reapplying after abandonment is not abandonment absent intent or conduct"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205230","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_bspegblk","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_tz5sixjn","target_id":"sb_fhtxdp23","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(c)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":217,"end":233},"pincite":"c"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205230","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_6dmz7rpb","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_s4dynmbc","target_id":"cs_o7mueqt2","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Gibbs, 437 F.2d 486, 168 USPQ 578 (CCPA 1971)","source_offset":{"start":591,"end":602},"proposition":"inference of abandonment from unclaimed disclosure is rebuttable before a statutory bar"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205243","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_5lx3ulhd","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_s4dynmbc","target_id":"sb_fhtxdp23","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(c)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":299,"end":315},"pincite":"c"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205243","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_53bwz6xa","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_msckzocy","target_id":"cs_j6gswzir","properties":{"citation_text":"Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 774 F.2d 1082, 1101, 227 USPQ 337, 350 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":194,"end":224},"pincite":"1101","proposition":"lapse of time bars a patent only in a priority contest with abandonment/suppression/concealment"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205256","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_lvbckujb","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_msckzocy","target_id":"st_eiprdrak","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(g)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":115,"end":131},"pincite":"g"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205256","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_hbe67lso","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_msckzocy","target_id":"st_eiprdrak","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(g)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":367,"end":383},"pincite":"g"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205256","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}},{"id":"e_ctwvfrao","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_msckzocy","target_id":"se_o7zejr62","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2138.03","target_anchor":"d0e207478"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2134.html","source_anchor":"d0e205256","source_sha256":"4b50cb4f447d456549f33339817e7200fa21453fa8f7b393c3f3bcb96c37565a"}}]}}