Solutions to Statutory Bar Exercises, Pages 223-24

1. Unstrong’s activities prior to November 14, 2006, would likely be considered to be an experimental use of the Bjorn invention. Therefore, they would not be considered a “public use” under §102(b), so they should not bar the Bjorn application.

2. This event constitutes a “printed publication” under §102(b) and starts the one-year grace period running. Because Bjorn filed an application before the expiration of the grace period, however, no bar is created here.

3. These steps would not be sufficient to invoke the on-sale bar under §102(b). Again, because the application is filed before the grace period is complete, Bjorn need not be concerned about his patent prospects based upon this event.

4. No statutory bar occurs here. The third party swish maintained the invention in secret and did not file a patent application, so the provisions of §102(b) do not apply.

5. Because the remarks occurred overseas and were not “described in a printed publication” as required by §102(b), they do not bear upon the patentability of the Bjorn process. That the discussion did not occur in the English language bears no relevance to this or any other prior art problem. Note that under the European Patent Convention, this reference would count as prior art.

6. Forehand has most likely abandoned the invention to the public under §102(c).

7. The Swedish patent bars a United States patent under §102(d) because the Swedish application was filed more than twelve months before the United States application and because it issued before the filing date of the United States application. Because the German application issued after the United States application, it does not create a problem under §102(d).