Appeal No. 98-1380
Application 08/786,741
invention would work for its intended purpose. It seems from the
evidence that by the critical date there was only a conception,
as embodied in the drawings, and that some parts of the invention
had been fabricated. 5
According to Seal-Flex (98 F.3d at 1324, 40 USPQ2d at
1454),
[the UMC] case did not turn on whether the
invention had been “extensively developed” at
the time it was offered for sale, but on
whether it was known that the invention would
work for its intended purpose without further
testing or evaluation.
Likewise, in Micro Chem., it is stated (103 F.2d at 1545, 41
USPQ2d at 1244):
UMC thus stands for the proposition that,
even though the technical requirements of a
reduction to practice have not been met, a
sale or a definite offer to sell a
substantially completed invention, with
reason to expect that it would work for its
intended purpose upon completion, suffices to
generate a statutory bar.
5Document 000530 purports to be a summary of what mechan-
ical components of the invention were not finished as of the
critical date. However, there is no evidence in the record to
show who prepared this document or to establish its accuracy.
We have therefore not given it any consideration.
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007