Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 14 JANUARY 2013

Responding To Canadian Patent Office Objections: Inherent Anticipation

McCarthy Tétrault
McCarthy Tétrault
Contributor
McCarthy Tétrault

McCarthy Tétrault

Built on a unique model of collaboration, innovation and efficiency, McCarthy Tétrault delivers...

View firm profile
Explore more from McCarthy Tétrault

This is part of a series of posts reviewing common Canadian Patent Office objections to patent applications and claimed inventions and providing some insight into how these objections may be addressed.

CanadaIntellectual Property

This is part of a series of posts reviewing common Canadian Patent Office objections to patent applications and claimed inventions and providing some insight into how these objections may be addressed.

The Objection

In a typical objection, the patent examiner asserts that the claimed compound is anticipated and cannot be patented because, although unknown at the time, the compound was inherently present in circumstances described in an earlier disclosure. The examiner will rely on section 28.2 of the Patent Act as the statutory basis for the objection.

This objection relates to the nature of the claimed invention, rather than an alleged failure of the patent application that discloses the claimed invention. Proof of novelty is not a requirement of Canadian patent specifications.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from