From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15238 invoked by alias); 2 Jun 2008 14:06:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 15229 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jun 2008 14:06:39 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from VLSI1.ULTRA.NYU.EDU (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with SMTP; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:06:16 +0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA22979; Mon, 2 Jun 08 10:09:16 EDT From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10806021409.AA22979@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:06:00 -0000 To: dberlin@dberlin.org Subject: Re: Wolfe patent on "assert chains" Cc: dewar@adacore.com, dnovillo@google.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, stevenb.gcc@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <4aca3dc20806020649p77dddd0ct8425bb854e360893@mail.gmail.com> References: <571f6b510806020149s21f17e75j1c591e13167def65@mail.gmail.com> <4843F242.3020908@adacore.com> <4aca3dc20806020647n62274463l8b46734f34de0dba@mail.gmail.com> <4aca3dc20806020649p77dddd0ct8425bb854e360893@mail.gmail.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-06/txt/msg00012.txt.bz2 > >> 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".