Appeal No. 1999-1002
Application No. 08/672,493
understanding of the experimental nature of the rolls and were
under obligation to report what the inventor considered to be
unsatisfactory copy performance. See Lillee Declaration at
item 30 on pages 7-8. Explicit or implicit obligations placed
upon a user to supply an inventor with the results of any
testing conducted during an experimental period is a factor
indicating whether the inventor's activities are within the
experimental use exception to Section 102(b). Monon,
239 F.2d at 1258, 57 USPQ2d at 1730; Robbins, 482 F.2d at 434,
178 USPQ at 583. Another factor that indicates that the
appellants’ activities are within the experimental use
exception is disclosure by the inventor to a user regarding
what the inventor considers as unsatisfactory operation of the
invention. Dybel, 524 F.2d at 1401, 187 USPQ at 599 (CCPA
1975). The appellants supplied field test manuals to each
testing site, including a disclosure to the user of what the
inventor regarded as unsatisfactory operation of the
invention. The manual includes instructions to report failed
components or abnormal performance, good or bad to the
inventor. Further, the field test locations were secure and
were only accessible to Xerox technicians and employees of the
test site. We find that the obligations placed on the
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007