Malay videocam sex live online
The reference to the "invention" in section 119 clearly refers to what the claims define, not what is disclosed in the foreign application.
In re Scheiber, 587 F.2d 59, 61, 199 USPQ 782, 784 (CCPA 1978) (stating that "invention" as used in 35 U.
The two chemical species disclosed by Gosteli's Luxembourg priority application are disclosed by Menard and also fall within the scope of the claims on appeal.
Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 261-62, 191 USPQ at 95-96; Kawai v.
Menard discloses, but does not claim, a first species, 2-[ (4R, S)-4-Acetylthio-2-oxo-1-azetidinyl]-2-hydroxyacetic acid p-nitrobenzyl ester, that is within the scope of claims 48 and 50, and a second species, 2-[ (4R, S)-4-Acetylthio-2-oxo-1-azetidinyl]-2-chloroacetic acid p-nitrobenzyl ester, that is within the scope of claims 49 and 51.
The examiner rejected claims 48-51 under section 102(e) as being anticipated by United States Patent No.
Metlesics, 480 F.2d 880, 887-89, 178 USPQ 158, 164-65 (CCPA 1973).
Cir.1983), and therefore, showing priority with respect only to as much of the invention as Menard discloses is needed.
To antedate a prior art reference, the applicant submits an oath or declaration alleging acts that establish a completion of the invention in this country before the effective date of the prior art.
See Mulder, 716 F.2d at 1543, 219 USPQ at 191 (stating that "[t]here is no question that applicants complied with all the formalities required by Sec.