Opinion ID: 209891
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Specific Reference

Text: MacDermid argues that the reference in the non-provisional application was insufficient to claim priority to the provisional application. It is undisputed that the Application Data Sheet submitted with the non-provisional application stated: Continuity Data: This application is a non-provisional of provisional 60/273669 2001-03-06 WHICH IS PENDING. 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1) requires, for a claim of priority, that the non-provisional application contain a specific reference to the provisional application. Under MPEP § 201.11, the specific reference can be either in the first sentence of the specification or in the application data sheet. If the specific reference is only contained in the application data sheet, then the benefit claim information will be included on the front page of any patent or patent application publication, but will not be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification. Id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.76(b)(5) (Providing [domestic priority information] in the application data sheet constitutes the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) ..., and need not otherwise be made part of the specification.); 37 C.F.R. § 1.76(d)(4) (The Office will capture bibliographic information from the application data sheet ...). In this case, it is undisputed that the ADS contained a reference to the provisional application. But MacDermid argues that the reference in the ADS was insufficient because DuPont did not use the language that is authorized by the MPEP to claim the benefit of a provisional application. Under MPEP § 201.11, [w]hen the nonprovisional application is entitled to an earlier U.S. effective filing date of one or more provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), a statement such as `This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/ ___, filed ___, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/ ___, filed ___.' should appear as the first sentence(s) of the description or in an application data sheet. (emphasis added). Here, rather than the precise language suggested in the MPEP, the ADS in the non-provisional application stated: Continuity Data: This application is a non-provisional of provisional 60/273669 2001-03-06 WHICH IS PENDING. Contrary to MacDermid's argument, this reference did not run afoul of the MPEP by failing to use magic words. The MPEP provision requires only that the applicant use a statement such as the one provided in Section 201.11. A reasonable person reading the language in the ADS would have concluded that the applicant was claiming priority to an earlier provisional application. Thus, we find no defect in the language used to reference the provisional application here.