5 ms·
Your analysis seems not quite right. Metallizing, for example, is a public use case in the sense that the legislative history uses the term even though the publ
by riemannzeta 14y ago
Your analysis seems not quite right. Metallizing, for example, is a public use case in the sense that the legislative history uses the term even though the public could not have understood how to make the invention from the public use. I think the legislative history here is meant to say that the clause is meant to have the same scope as the old 102(b) bars except for territoriality. There's stil the new clause though...
- DannyBee 14y agoYes, i agree with your viewpoint of what Metallizing is about, though Metallizing is still generally considered a secret prior art case, in the way "secret prior art" is used: Things the inventor could not have possibly known about at the time of filing, even if they had attempted to know everything. In that sense, it is in fact, a secret use, even though the holding was that it was a public use :)