Comments on: Q) Grape Squeezing (4.00.21p) http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/25/q-grape-squeezing-40021p/ Patent Bar Review and Study Guide Tue, 22 May 2012 00:33:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Overworkked http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/25/q-grape-squeezing-40021p/#comment-10119 Overworkked Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:19:32 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=705#comment-10119 Repeat or close variant on 4/27/2011 MPEP E8R8 Dealt with 102(f) and whether evidence that another person made the exact invention in the past is sufficient to reject under 102(f). Repeat or close variant on 4/27/2011 MPEP E8R8

Dealt with 102(f) and whether evidence that another person made the exact invention in the past is sufficient to reject under 102(f).

]]> By: Soonrealsoon http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/25/q-grape-squeezing-40021p/#comment-7343 Soonrealsoon Tue, 08 Feb 2011 20:33:59 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=705#comment-7343 Also, (C) is incorrect, because the reasoning of public disclosure is valid if it was in US. Machine not hidden and in public view is not hiding. I guess statement is correct, but not the reason for the case. correct me. Also, (C) is incorrect, because the reasoning of public disclosure is valid if it was in US. Machine not hidden and in public view is not hiding.

I guess statement is correct, but not the reason for the case.

correct me.

]]>