Interference No. 103,146
sale, and the design was not finalized. BX-18 at 2-3.
However, in our view, the Supreme Court has put these
arguments to rest to the extent that it has held that the
device need only be “ready for patenting.” We regard the
latex disk embodiment as ready for patenting, because the
inventors had prepared drawings, descriptions, and, indeed, a
prototype, sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in
the art to practice the invention.
Our further analysis must be directed to the scope
of any commercial activities, the first prong of the Pfaff
test, specifically directed to whether the December activities
constitute an offer for sale as contended by Barker. The
December 1980 activities referred to are the field visits by
Eric Shore described in the Shore memorandum BX-16.
Therefore, the evidence Barker is relying upon are the Shore
memorandum BX-16, Shore’s declaration with respect thereto,
and the cross- examination of Shore with respect to the
memorandum and declaration. The following represents our
findings of fact with regard to the above-enumerated evidence.
37
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007