Appeal No. 98-1380
Application 08/786,741
order) is not clear from the record, but by the critical date it
had not been developed or completed. As discussed above, the
invention involved in the present case is such that until it had
at least been assembled, let alone tested, it could not be said
to be substantially complete (Micro Chem., 103 F.3d at 1545, 41
USPQ2d at 1244; Pfaff, 124 F.3d at 1434, 43 USPQ2d at 1932) and,
therefore, would not be subject to the on-sale bar of § 102(b).
Since the assembly of the machine embodying the invention did
not occur until after the critical date, there is no on-sale
bar here.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 to 16 is
reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007