Talk:Continuing patent application: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:27, 14 September 2016

Law C‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Divisional applications

I'm proposing to divide (apologies for the pun) Divisional patent application out of this article, as Continuing patent applications are more or less only a US concept, whereas Divisional applications have worldwide application (indeed, are required by Article 4G of the Paris Convention). But not now, as I'm on lunch. --Harris 12:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me.--Nowa 13:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the comparison of continutation and divisional applications with practice in other countries is misleading. It is not really true to say that there are no continuation applications in other countries. Rather, other countries do not make the distinction between continuation applications and divisional applications, and call them all divisional applications. Thus in the USA, an new application to pursue non-elected claims following a restriction request is a divisional application, but any other new application to pursue matter described in the original application is a continuation application. In other jurisdictions, all such applications are permitted, and are all called divisional applications regardless of whether the claims in the new application were or were not in the parent applcation and regardless of whether a unity-of-invention objection was received or not. --86.16.3.237 (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially unreliable sources

I'm confused as to why one blog is a potentially unreliable source and another is not. The referenced blog has links to the relevant pleadings in the Glaxo case, and it seems it makes more sense and is easier to read if you use a single link to a source of all the relevant pleadings rather than have multiple references. Vikesfan33 14:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. I have added the tag for the other blog as well. I think it would be more appropriate to have accurate references to the relevant pleadings or to peer-reviewed papers for instance (see WP:RS#Self-published sources). --Edcolins 16:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of continuing patent applications in the US

Is the chart correct? It seems that the positions of Divisional and Continuation should be reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.212.207.50 (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RCE Practice

Why is RCE practice discussed in this article? This is a way of continuing the examination of an existing application. It does not involve the filing of a new application that gets a new application number (unlike the old "file wrapper continuation" practice), and so it doesn't seem to relate to a "continuing application". --86.16.3.237 (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 I'm proposing to divide (apologies for the pun) '''Divisional patent application''' out of this article, as Continuing patent applications are more or less only a US concept, whereas Divisional applications have worldwide application (indeed, are required by Article 4G of the Paris Convention).  But not now, as I'm on lunch.  --[[User:Harris000|Harris]] 12:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 :Sounds good to me.--[[User:Nowa|Nowa]] 13:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
+I think that the comparison of continutation and divisional applications with practice in other countries is misleading.  It is not really true to say that there are no continuation applications in other countries.  Rather, other countries do not make the distinction between continuation applications and divisional applications, and call them all divisional applications.  Thus in the USA, an new application to pursue non-elected claims following a restriction request is a divisional application, but any other new application to pursue matter described in the original application is a continuation application.  In other jurisdictions, all such applications are permitted, and are all called divisional applications regardless of whether the claims in the new application were or were not in the parent applcation and regardless of whether a unity-of-invention objection was received or not. --[[Special:Contributions/86.16.3.237|86.16.3.237]] ([[User talk:86.16.3.237|talk]]) 11:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 ==Potentially unreliable sources==
@@ Line 11: / Line 12: @@
 ==Summary of continuing patent applications in the US==
 Is the chart correct?  It seems that the positions of Divisional and Continuation should be reversed.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/122.212.207.50|122.212.207.50]] ([[User talk:122.212.207.50|talk]]) 09:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+==RCE Practice==
+Why is RCE practice discussed in this article?  This is a way of continuing the examination of an existing application.  It does not involve the filing of a new application that gets a new application number (unlike the old "file wrapper continuation" practice), and so it doesn't seem to relate to a "continuing application". --[[Special:Contributions/86.16.3.237|86.16.3.237]] ([[User talk:86.16.3.237|talk]]) 11:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)