Luckily, 35 U.S.C. 102 (c) & (d) are not quite as complex as the two previous statutory bars. Let's start with (c). 102(c) simply states that a "person shall be entitled to a patent unless he or she has abandoned the invention." An example of abandonment is when the inventor reduces an idea to practice, but never bothers to file a patent application.

For example, if Tom comes up with a new way to recharge batteries, but 10 years go by before he files a patent, he may encounter some trouble patenting his invention. Chances are that he or someone else will have written about the battery recharger or even patented the idea themselves. Since Tom never pushed the idea forward, the PTO will deem that he abandoned his invention during that 10 year period and he may not get credit for it in the form of a patent.

In order to qualify under 102(c), the abandonment must be a deliberate surrender of the patent rights. The surrender will be considered deliberate due to either actions or inactions by the inventor that are either expressed or implied. In the PTO's eyes, if an inventor goes through the trouble of reducing an idea to practice, it only follows that he or she would apply for a patent.

Therefore, if Tom goes through the motions of reducing his batter recharger idea to practice, he really needs to move forward and send in a patent application. If he is not serious about gaining a patent, he will merely use the battery charger himself and maybe allow some friends and neighbors to also use it. After a couple of years go by and Tom has let others know about his invention, but has yet to file for a patent, it is implied that he has abandoned the invention. If Tom wanted the patent, he wouldn't share his idea with anyone and let the time go by without filing an application.