Appeal No. 1997-4438
Application No. 08/173,431
have known from the teachings and suggestions of the
publications how to arrive at the claimed method and device
structure. Appellant has not provided any evidence that
proves otherwise.
Appellant argues (Brief, page 9) that what was publicly
used equates to a black box and that the public was only able
to perceive what was coming out the black box not what was
inside the box. In view of the absence of a specific
description of the disclosed invention in both the
specification and the publications, we assume that anyone
desiring to carry out the method and device of the disclosed
and claimed invention would know of the techniques and
equipment to be used. In re Fox, 471 F.2d 1405, 1406, 176
USPQ 340, 341 (CCPA 1973). A prior use is
public even if the invention is completely hidden from view,
and even if viewers of the machine incorporating the invention
do not comprehend the invention. Stated differently, “we are
not aware of any requirement that the person to which an
invention is publicly disclosed has to understand the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007