Talk:X v Canada (Commissioner of Patents)

Canada: Law Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Utility or sufficiency of disclosure?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The first sentence states that the case concerns the requirement that inventions must be useful to be patented. The body of the article rather suggests that the question is about sufficiency of disclosure, not utility. Or did I miss something? --Edcolins (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply