Question: Trade Winds, Ltd., is a British company which processes and packages bulk herbs and spices. It sells these goods to distributors, who resell them under a variety of brand names. In February of 1997, Smith, an employee of Trade Winds, conceived the idea, new at that time, of using a container made of clear plastic rather than the traditional tin spice package or an opaque plastic container. In due course, Smith came forward with a large, clear container in the basic shape of a tall box with an oval depression in each side that serves as a hand grip. The container also has a plastic screw-on lid which has a flip-up opening for spooning or shaking out the contents of the container. On March 11, 1997, Trade Winds filed a utility patent application in Great Britain which fully disclosed their new spice container and its unique design, and shortly thereafter, on April 10, 1997, the new container was displayed at a packaging trade show in Yorkshire, England. The container was such a success at the trade show that Trade Winds, on May 6, 1997, entered into a 3 month contract with Professor Yak, a renowned business consultant and Dean of the School of Economics at a university in the United States, to develop a long-range business plan for Trade Winds. In order to get feedback from people who might actually use the container, Professor Yak set up a study at his university in which he selected ten students who were dietetics majors at his university, and tasked them to test the functional features of the new container, the prior art tin container, and the prior art opaque plastic container. The study occurred between June 1, and August 1, 1997. A study guide outlined the methodology, wherein: (1) the students were to pick up the containers and describe how they felt (e.g., comfortable, awkward, easy to grip, balanced, etc.); (2) the students were asked which container they liked best, and why, and (3) the students were asked how the containers felt when shaking out their contents. On March 6, 1998, Trade Winds filed an application for a design patent on the new container in the United States claiming the benefit of the earlier filing date of the British patent application under 35 U.S.C. § 119. Which of the following statements accords with proper PTO practice and procedure?
A. The U.S. design patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the copending British application under 35 U.S.C. § 119. Since this date is earlier than the date of the trade show, the display of the container at the show is not a public use bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
B. The U.S. design patent application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the copending British application under 35 U.S.C.  119. Therefore, the display of the container at the show is a public use bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
C. The U.S. design patent application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the copending British application under 35 U.S.C. § 119. Therefore, Professor Yak's study activity in the United States constitutes a public use bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
D. The U.S. design patent application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the copending British application under 35 U.S.C. § 119. The U.S. design patent application is barred by Professor Yak's study activity in the United States because the study activity involved the display of the cannister design to a group of "in this country," and the activity occurred 'more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.'
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)