What roles do conception and reduction to practice play in a 102(g) rejection?

The significance of the relationship between conception and reduction to practice in a 102(g) rejection lies in the understanding of the timeline of these two concepts. In patent law, conception refers to the mental act of inventing, while reduction to practice involves demonstrating that the invention works, either through an actual working model or a sufficient description enabling a person skilled in the art to practice the invention.

In the context of a 102(g) rejection, it is essential that conception occurs prior to reduction to practice for it to be considered relevant in establishing priority among competing claims. This means that the individual or entity that conceived the idea first, and subsequently reduced it to practice, has the priority claim to the invention. A subsequent inventor may have realized the invention later but cannot claim the same priority if they did not conceive it before the first inventor's reduction to practice.

This sequence effectively establishes a timeline critical for evaluating priority disputes. For example, if two inventors created similar inventions at different times, the one who conceived their idea first and also reduced it to practice would generally prevail against claims from the later inventor. Thus, understanding this hierarchy is vital in navigating 102(g) rejections within patent law.