你引用的話的原文，AIA立法過程中參議員Leahy的發言 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. 這整段話翻起來是說 我們希望"如果一個發明人的行為會構成102(a)的前案，則所述行為必然啟動102(b)對 此發明人的保護，另一方面，會成為102(a)的前案的，就會被102(b)所提供的優惠期 所排除。確實，依據一個實例來說，被寫下來的102(b)(1)(A)的用字是被刻意措詞的比 102(a)(1)(的範圍)更廣。這代表著任何由此發明人所作的揭露，不管是不是被做成公開 的形式，都會被排除做為前案(的適格性)。簡而言之，對於新的102(a)來說 現在的法律對在申請前揭露了其發明的發明人的保護沒有任何一個面向被以任何方式改變 所以Leahy的立法目的究竟是什麼不言而喻 ※ 引述《VanDeLord (HelloWorld)》之銘言： ※ 編輯: VanDeLord (60.251.209.130), 08/06/2014 17:29:03 Disclosure包含document 和 actitivies all activites 不代表all documents 以下猜猜看誰說的： 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 ※ 編輯: VanDeLord (60.251.209.130), 08/06/2014 17:44:58 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 210.59.205.20 ※ 文章網址: http://webptt.com/m.aspx?n=bbs/Patent/M.1407319489.A.E7B.html