08:33 May 13, 2002 |
English language (monolingual) [Non-PRO] Law/Patents | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Selected response from: MJ Barber Spain Local time: 16:10 | |||
Grading comment
|
SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 +1 | correct |
| ||
5 | If this is meant to be a complete sentence, it is incorrect. |
|
correct Explanation: meaning: it sounds to like somebody has been accused of divulging confidential details of an invention for which a patent application has been made. The reply is that the information divulged was either unimportant or in the public domain (non-prejudicial disclosure) or that the invention is not worthy of patent protection as it does not improve on the state of the art (exceptions (pleas) to lack of novelty) |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
If this is meant to be a complete sentence, it is incorrect. Explanation: Whilst the previous explanation is clear (I don't have any light to shed on the matter of patents), where is the verb? This is not a complete sentence. Whilst I understand that lawyers and sollicitors tend to do the funkiest things with the English language, this sentence is incomplete from a purely syntactic point of view. |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.