Appeal No. 1997-4438
Application No. 08/173,431
“public use” under U.S.C.
§ 102(b). Appellant’s argument concerning “results of the
invention” are, therefore, irrelevant since appellant has not
demonstrated that each of the questioned public uses of the
claimed invention was not a “consistent, reproducible use of”
the claimed invention. W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed.
Cir. 1983). More importantly, there is no requirement that
the observer of the public use of the claimed invention must
understand how it works.
In reviewing the totality of the circumstances, within
the underlying polices of the public use bar, we find that
appellant’s public use of the claimed invention for the
business purpose of gaining publicity for the inventor and
his company is a commercial use of the claimed invention. By
appellant’s own admission (Specification, page 12, lines 4-6
and 27-28), the publications describe the disclosed and
claimed invention. Thus, the publications provide enabled
disclosures that describe the claimed invention. Even if the
publications are not fully enabled, the skilled artisan would
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007