Yes, the details should've been made public. In order for that patent to have issued, they couldn't have kept secret the ingredients or even what proportions of combinations they're in, otherwise it'd fail the "best mode" requirement of implementation. A patented item must allow the reasonably skilled person in that field of art to follow the instructions and recreate it.
That doesn't stop them from burying the "actual" best mode amongst other feasible modes, however. A very cursory look at the patent shows 22 slightly varying, different composition of matters that would qualify as the invention...
Uh, sure you can. You just file an Intent To Use ("ITU") application. It gives you 6 months to show actual use, plus the option to extend that time period for a maximum of 3 years (in 6 month intervals). As long as you keep paying the fees and filing those extensions, you can still get the original ITU filing date.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the details should've been made public. In order for that patent to have issued, they couldn't have kept secret the ingredients or even what proportions of combinations they're in, otherwise it'd fail the "best mode" requirement of implementation. A patented item must allow the reasonably skilled person in that field of art to follow the instructions and recreate it. That doesn't stop them from burying the "actual" best mode amongst other feasible modes, however. A very cursory look at the patent shows 22 slightly varying, different composition of matters that would qualify as the invention...
Uh, sure you can. You just file an Intent To Use ("ITU") application. It gives you 6 months to show actual use, plus the option to extend that time period for a maximum of 3 years (in 6 month intervals). As long as you keep paying the fees and filing those extensions, you can still get the original ITU filing date.
I wonder if the next round of ID will come with their own version of "peer-review"... Christian Science Journal perhaps..