Patent Still example

Occasionally, discoveries cannot be patented. For example, if you discover something novel, such as lithium ameliorating bipolar disorder, there is a problem. Lithium is a chemical element, not a new chemical compound that can be patented per se. Since the industry could not make much money making lithium tablets, there was less incentive to establish a use patent. Nowadays, for some cases such as this, there is an orphan drug statute in the United States, which, since 1983, gives a company a seven-year exclusivity and enables it to develop a drug treatment and still help patients. But this is a very slow and very difficult process. It is much better to patent, and let the patent drop should no one develop it into a coiranercial product, than not to patent at all. 

The currently accepted name for (1) in Chemical Abstracts is dibenzothiophene, although biphenylene, diphenylene, or biphenylylene sulfide are still used, especially in the Russian literature. Occasionally 9-thia-fluorene is used and recently, in one instance, dibenzo[6,d]thiophene. An alternative numbering system for (1) is met with on occasions in which C-4 is taken as C-1, as in carbazole. In the absenee of moleeular diagrams this system must be detected by reference to the chemistry described. For example, in a few dyestuff patents 2,7-diaminodibenzothiophene 5,5-dioxide is referred to and this is obviously the 3,7-diamino compound, also known as benzidine sulfone. 

With respect to recent patent applications the neuroprotective properties of non-NMDA antagonists are still in the focus of pharmacetical research, but the majority of patents does not propose that they should be used for pain relief. However, the continuing interest in AMPA/kainate receptor modulators might also lead to further investigations of their analgesic properties. Two examples of AMPA receptor modulators recently claimed for pain are shown. 

Although other methods, such as stoechiometric iron reduction [2], are still practised, gaseous dihydrogen is widely used, as documented in the reference books by Augustine [3], Freifelder [4], Rylander [5] and Cerveny [6]. Recent patents and articles will be quoted throughout this article, more by way of illustrative examples than for the sake of exhaustivity. 

Several patents were issued on this topic. For example, Rueter [34] in his patent cited about 120 US patents and about 40 foreign patents in the period 1987-2004. The actual number of patents is higher, but already these numbers indicate that many aspects of catalyst and process technology are covered. Patents in the last five years (2003-2008) were thus focused either on the improvement of catalyst preparation and/or improvement of reaction/reactor operations, particularly with strong attention on the safety of operations. However, often in the cited patents operations are still... 

Section 102(f) is not a common source of prior art since it is concerned with the situation in which one party conceives an invention and that invention is learned of by another who then attempts to claim the invention himself in a patent application.21 Section 102(f) is useful in circumstances in which a citation under one of the other 102 sections is not appropriate. For example, under 102(a), we learned that public use outside of the United States would not be a basis for rejection under that section, but deriving one s invention from witnessing that public use and filing a patent application on that derivation could still be citable under section 102(f) since 102(f) does not have any geographic restraints. Perhaps more generically, one might best think of 102(f) as describing a situation in which the patent application fails to properly list the inventors. Under many circumstances, this type of error can be corrected (see Chapter 4). 

As a general matter, the 102 sections listed in this chapter may be applied to show that a later filed patent application lacks novelty, is obvious, or both. A rejection of patentability under one or more of the 102 sections alleging that the claimed invention is not novel is usually referred to simply as a 102 rejection, referenced to whatever sections the prior art belongs to. For example, if a prior art nonpatent publication by another more than 1 year before the application in question was alleged to defeat the novelty of the applicant s claimed invention then a rejection under 102(b) could be brought this would be called 102(b) rejection for lack of novelty.42 For a rejection to be made solely upon a 102 reference, a single prior art reference must disclose every element of the patent application claim. If a combination of multiple prior art references is needed to disclose the entirety of the invention, this cannot be the basis for a novelty rejection. However, multiple references may be used to reject a patent application claim as being obvious —that is, the invention may be technically novel, but still not patentable. 

---