Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Section 102 rejection

Read a random definition: in facie curiae

A quick definition of Section 102 rejection:

A Section 102 rejection is when someone's application for a patent is denied because their idea is not new or original. This means that someone else has already come up with the same idea and has a patent for it. It's like trying to claim a toy as your own, but someone else already has the same toy and has proof that it belongs to them. The person who applied for the patent can try to change their idea or argue that it is different enough to still be patentable.

A more thorough explanation:

A Section 102 rejection is when a patent examiner finds that a claim in a patent application is not new or novel. This means that the invention has already been disclosed or made public in some way, so it cannot be patented.

For example, if someone tries to patent a new type of phone case, but someone else has already patented a similar phone case, the patent examiner may issue a Section 102 rejection.

Another example is if someone tries to patent an invention that they have already made public, such as by publishing a description of it online or presenting it at a conference. In this case, the patent examiner may also issue a Section 102 rejection.

Overall, a Section 102 rejection is a way for the patent office to ensure that only truly new and innovative inventions are granted patents.

Section 101 rejection | Section 103 rejection

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
17:38
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: can I ask what “2 years retroactive withdrawals” means
17:39
elon and trump realize there are many fish in the sea, and sometimes u can't just 'make it work'
@sadpadresfan: grades changed to W for two consecutive years of classes
Dkk
17:39
Nah, I did not vote. I have never voted in my life because I have a lot of issues with it. 4 years ago my mom filled out my ballot for me because she wanted to but I do not vote.
17:40
based fellow non voter
@llama i do not need or desire external validation.
17:40
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: ah I see
17:41
@LawIsForPeasants: ok, sorry, I will not bother u while u 'self validate yourself in the corner' my bad.
@llama: im self validating so hard rn
17:42
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: thats very ithica of you, wasp.
texaslawhopefully
17:44
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: Out of curiosity, since you're in law school and prolly know fedsoc people, how conservative do you think you have to be to be in fedsoc? Like is a david french sort of conservative fairly common in it, or is it the maga type people mainly
i dont interact with any fedsoc people, but i dont know any maga people at cornell. but the student body overwhelmingly leans left, so i think they might not be comfortable showing that theyre conservative if that makes sense?
one time a guy kind of crashed out about masks in conlaw
but that's the most ive seen
texaslawhopefully
17:47
Yeah, that does make sense. I would like to join fedsoc, but I'm also, clearly, very opposed to Trump and where the GOP has gone.
if you join fedsoc and go for clerking and eventually become a judge. you will be pinholed into maga politics as long as maga is the predominant conservative stance
Idk if @irishdinosaur is online but congrats on UCLA!!
next you will say you want to be the first black kkk grand wizard
@SaddestPortlander: tysm!!!!
texaslawhopefully
18:00
yes congrats irishdinosaur! that's incredible
18:03
@IrishDinosaur: you inspire me and my completely misguided cope that I might ever get into UCLA
Super big congrats irish!!!
Also pretty much agree with Wasp. I think it’s more about getting the political/judicial position as a Fedsoc member that will likely require a stance siding with whatever the conservative majority party is at that time.
texaslawhopefully
18:07
Yeah, that's fair. I guess I need to think about it more assuming I start law school in the fall. I really want to clerk and that seems like the best option.
BUT i think once you get the position, you’ll have more leeway in making decisions more liberally. Sort of like how ACB and Gorsuch sometimes swing left after being portreayed in the media as far right (not sure if that was actually the case though).
From the perspective of someone who interned at the White House, I will add that my bosses always told me to “be careful about my resume.” Don’t want to align with any org that doesn’t fit your values because you won’t be trusted by the other side until you show them you’re legit again, and word travels in DC.
texaslawhopefully
18:10
I mean I highly highly doubt I'll become a federal judge, it's more just about getting a leg up in getting opportunities in the first place
Not sure how that true that is in practice and sorry for the long messages💀
texaslawhopefully
18:10
And, yeah, that's fair. Right now my resume probably looks like it's from someone who is center-right
Honestly, it just depends on your values. If you ever see yourself being a dem member in any capacity, then MAYBE stay away. But like you just said, there’s a possibility to look moderate with the right WE post law school.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.