你引用的话的原文，AIA立法过程中参议员Leahy的发言 112th Congress Record Leahy We intend that if an inventor's actions are such as to constitute prior art under subsection 102(a), then those actions necessarily trigger subsection 102(b)'s protections for the inventor and, what would otherwise have been section 102(a) prior art, would be excluded as prior art by the grace period provided by subsection 102(b). Indeed, as an example of this, subsection 102(b)(1)(A), as written, was deliberately couched in broader terms than subsection 102(a)(1). This means that any disclosure by the inventor whatsoever, whether or not in a form that resulted in the disclosure being available to the public, is wholly disregarded as prior art. A simple way of looking at new subsection 102(a) is that no aspect of the protections under current law for inventors who disclose their inventions before filing is in any way changed. 这整段话翻起来是说 我们希望"如果一个发明人的行为会构成102(a)的前案，则所述行为必然启动102(b)对 此发明人的保护，另一方面，会成为102(a)的前案的，就会被102(b)所提供的优惠期 所排除。确实，依据一个实例来说，被写下来的102(b)(1)(A)的用字是被刻意措词的比 102(a)(1)(的范围)更广。这代表着任何由此发明人所作的揭露，不管是不是被做成公开 的形式，都会被排除做为前案(的适格性)。简而言之，对於新的102(a)来说 现在的法律对在申请前揭露了其发明的发明人的保护没有任何一个面向被以任何方式改变 所以Leahy的立法目的究竟是什麽不言而喻 ※ 引述《VanDeLord (HelloWorld)》之铭言： ※ 编辑: VanDeLord (60.251.209.130), 08/06/2014 17:29:03 Disclosure包含document 和 actitivies all activites 不代表all documents 以下猜猜看谁说的： A simple way of looking at [the new grace period] is that no aspect of the protections under current law for inventors who disclose their inventions before filing is in any way changed. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Senator Leahy ※ 编辑: VanDeLord (60.251.209.130), 08/06/2014 17:44:58 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 210.59.205.20 ※ 文章网址: http://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/Patent/M.1407319489.A.E7B.html