Priority, Conference Poster, and a Competitor's Article
An Israeli applicant files a US provisional on 12 January 2022 describing a membrane with pores of 20–50 nm and a binder. The provisional mentions the binder but not the 20–50 nm range; the range first appears in the PCT filed 10 January 2023 claiming priority. The PCT designates Israel, and the applicant enters national phase on 10 July 2024. On 20 February 2022 the inventor presents a poster at a Tel Aviv conference showing a 30 nm membrane with the same binder. On 5 June 2022 a German group publishes an article disclosing a 25 nm membrane with the binder. The examiner cites both the poster and the article against claim 1, which recites the 20–50 nm range and the binder. The applicant argues that priority from the provisional covers the claim. The only evidence of the poster's content is an abstract that omits the binder.
1. Does claim 1 receive the 12 January 2022 priority date? Identify the effective date and the consequences for the poster and the German article.
Read the worked answer
Priority is assessed claim by claim and feature by feature. The applicant must show that the priority document discloses the claimed combination in a manner that supports it, not merely that it mentions one component.
- The provisional discloses the binder but not the 20–50 nm range. Claim 1 requires both the range and the binder. The full combination therefore does not appear in the provisional.
- The effective date of claim 1 is the PCT international filing date, 10 January 2023, not 12 January 2022.
- The poster of 20 February 2022 and the German article of 5 June 2022 both predate 10 January 2023. Each is potential prior art.
- The article appears to disclose a 25 nm membrane with the binder, which falls inside claim 1. If the article is enabling, it anticipates claim 1.
- The poster is weaker prior art because the abstract omits the binder. The applicant should obtain the poster itself, conference programme, photographs and witness evidence. If the displayed poster disclosed the binder, it also anticipates; if it disclosed only the pore size, it may support an obviousness attack but not anticipation.
The applicant's priority argument fails because a later PCT cannot backfill missing subject matter in the provisional. The response should correct the effective-date analysis rather than defend priority.
2. Can the applicant neutralize the poster as the inventor's own disclosure? What evidence and legal route are realistic?
Read the worked answer
The applicant should not assume that an inventor's own disclosure is automatically harmless. Israel's novelty system is principally absolute, and any exception for exhibitions or a grace period must be specifically established and properly invoked. The realistic routes are:
- Show the poster was not public or was confidential. Conference terms, registration conditions, a confidentiality notice and witness statements may help, but a public poster session is usually public.
- Show the poster did not disclose the binder. This is the strongest factual route. The abstract omits the binder; the applicant needs the actual poster, photographs, the conference programme and a declaration from the inventor. A self-serving declaration alone is unlikely to satisfy the Registrar.
- Invoke any applicable exhibition exception. The applicant must prove that the conference qualifies, that the disclosure was by the inventor, and that any required notice or evidence was filed in time. A general 'academic conference' argument is not enough.
- Accept the poster as prior art and amend. If the poster disclosed the full claim, the applicant must narrow to an embodiment not disclosed, provided there is support and no added matter.
The burden of proving an exception or a specific disclosure content lies with the applicant. The examiner is entitled to rely on the abstract until rebutted.
3. What amendment strategy should the applicant follow before responding to the examiner?
Read the worked answer
First, determine whether the German article discloses every feature of claim 1. If it discloses 25 nm plus the binder, claim 1 is anticipated and the priority argument will not save it. The applicant should then:
- Search the specification for a feature absent from the article, such as a two-layer coating, a specific pore geometry, a surface treatment, or a narrow range with comparative data. The amendment must be literally supported by the original disclosure.
- Consider narrowing to a range such as 35–45 nm only if the specification provides support and comparative data showing an unexpected effect against the 25 nm disclosure. A narrow range chosen without data is likely to be attacked as obvious.
- Add an assay limitation if the specification discloses one, for example a defined water flux or rejection test. This can create a concrete technical difference.
- Keep fallback positions in dependent claims. Do not cancel all broad claims in one response; preserve a hierarchy for appeal or opposition.
- Do not rely on the provisional. If the priority claim is wrong, correcting it after national phase may not be possible, and the applicant should focus on the effective date of 10 January 2023.
The response should be evidence-led: a declaration comparing the claimed embodiment with the article and poster, plus a claim set that is clearly supported.