These questions and ans. are taken from previous posts:
There is one question discussing the use of "mirror" in the claims and whether its "reflective qualities" should be discussed in the specification. I am not sure if this was a prior question, however. You were to choose from a list of choices a single answer that comported with USPTO practice and procedure.
Among the answers (from memory): (A) because the definition of mirror automatically includes its reflective qualities, there is no need to amend the specification to include the reflective qualties (E) the mirror in one part of the specification is "parallel," and the mirror in another part is "perpindicular," the specification is conflicting and one who has knowledge in the art would not be able to tell the difference so you amend the specification. Did anyone get this question and what would the answer be?
It is A, reflective qualities, as a general term, would be inherent, and not need to be discussed. Whether it is positioned parallel or perpendicular has nothing to do with its reflective qualities, and on top of that, would likely be obvious. If it possessed "special" reflective qualities, that would not be known to one skilled in the art, that would be different and need to be included, so that it could be enabled to be claimed later.
2. Titanium /Museum Baseball Question
A question involving an article about a special titanium baseball put on public display in a museum. The main question is: is it public use if only "wealthy museum patrons who have no interest or skill to make baseballs" see it? Or is it public use when the general public see it, or people who have the interest/skill to make baseballs can see it? In other words, the main question is: is something public use if ONLY the people having skill in the art can see it?
It only requires that it be accessible to the public, and not hidden away in such a way that one cannot find it except by happenstance, whether people who are skilled in the art have happened to see it or not, as long as it is open to the public, is irrelevant.
The public is the public, it doesn't matter if they had to pay for admission, they don't belong to the same entity. Even if they aren't interested in the baseball, they could easily describe it to a baseball manufacturer who would be very interested.
its a 102(b) bar, due to the "public use" (thats right)when it was displayed to members of the museum.
based on MPEP 2133.03(a) II A. 2
see In re Blaisdell & Ex parte Kuklo
Display in a laboratory --> public use
doesn't have to be displayed to those skilled in the art.
no need for all inner workings to be shown.
Compare to Moleculon (the rubix cube case) where the inventor did not cause a public use by leaving the cube on his desk.
Just go to the MPEP and read the section with Blaisdell and Kuklo, you'll see what they're testing. There were different times when the reference could have gone into effect, in this case (if I remember correctly) the baseball was displayed to the museum members over a year before the filing date of the application.
Someone please help answer questions.