On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Does anyone know if inclusion of something in openly available source >> >> code has been accepted as proper publication for prior art? (it does >> >> not meet the letter, but it does meet the spirit I would say). >> > >> > The patent examiners i've spoken with in the past (and their >> > supervisors) consider publicly available source code to be prior art. >> > I am too lazy to search federal circuit case law, but my recollection >> > is that their is a case or two on point here saying it is. >> > (They read "printed publication" very broadly to include any document >> > available to the public) >> > >> Here you go: >> >> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2128.htm > > Hmm.... I'm not sure. Nothing in there seems to be talking about viewing > source code as a "publication". The way I read that, it's addressing the > issue of "printed" vs "electronic", not "source code" vs "publication".
Uh? "We agree that 'printed publication' should be approached as a unitary concept. The traditional dichotomy between 'printed' and 'publication' is no longer valid. Given the state of technology in document duplication, data storage, and data retrieval systems, the 'probability of dissemination' of an item very often has little to do with whether or not it is 'printed' in the sense of that word when it was introduced into the patent statutes in 1836. In any event, interpretation of the words 'printed' and 'publication' to mean 'probability of dissemination' and 'public accessibility' respectively, now seems to render their use in the phrase 'printed publication' somewhat redundant." IE they don't care whether it i printed, and don't care whether it i a publication, they care whether it is accessible to the public and has been disseminated to the public. Anyway, this is wildly off topic.
