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

In the context of a 102(g) rejection, conception and reduction to practice are critical concepts regarding the determination of prior art and patentability. For a 102(g) rejection to be relevant, it is essential that conception occurs before reduction to practice.

Conception refers to the formation of a definite and certain idea of the invention in the mind of the inventor. It is considered the first step, laying the foundation for the invention. Reduction to practice involves the actual creation or demonstration of the invention, whether through physical creation or by filing a patent application.

For a rejection under 102(g), the timeline is important; a party claiming prior invention must show that it conceived of the invention before the other party reduced it to practice. If the reduction to practice happened before the conception, then the earlier party cannot claim the invention. The relevancy of the conception preceding the reduction to practice establishes priority in patent rights and underscores the importance of the chronological sequence in the patent application process.

This understanding is fundamental when navigating patent claims and disputes, as it influences the validity of patents and their defenses. Consequently, option B correctly captures this sequence and its significance in the patent examination process.