Appeal No. 2000-009
Application 08/742,426
by one or more of the appealed claims was in public use or on-sale within the meaning of
§ 102(b).
The appealed claims are adequately represented by independent claim 18:
18. A green tinted, ultraviolet absorbing, soda lime silica glass composition comprising,
on a weight percent basis, 66 to 75% SiO2, 10 to 20 % Na2O, 5 to 15% CaO, 0 to 5% MgO, 0 to
5% Al2O3, 0 to 5% K2O and a colorant portion consisting essentially of greater than 0.6% total
iron (expressed as Fe2O3) with a ratio of FeO/total iron from 0.275 to less than 0.35 and
exhibiting ultraviolet transmittance no greater than 38 percent (300 to 400 nanometers) and
luminous transmittance (illuminant A) of at least 70 percent at thicknesses ranging from 0.154 to
0.189 inches.
Independent claims 19, 20 and 23 differ from claim 18 in the ranges of the ingredients, and
dependent claims 21 and 22, dependent on claim 20, and dependent claims 24 and 25 dependent
on claim 23, add the excitation purity property. Claims 26, 28, 30 and 32 are sequentially
dependent on claims 18 to 20 and 23, respectively, and each encompass a “flat glass formed by
the float process from the glass composition of” the specified independent claim.
In order to demonstrate that the claimed product encompassed by one or more of the
appealed claims was, prima facie, on-sale within the meaning of § 102 (b), the examiner must
first establish that the claimed product was “the subject of a commercial offer for sale” and was
“ready for patenting” more than one year before the critical date. Pfaff v. Wells Elect., Inc.,
525 U.S. 55, 67, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1646 (1998). This burden can be carried by showing that
there was a definite sale or offer to sell a process which fully anticipated the claimed product or
would have rendered the claimed product obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art by its
addition to the prior art. See Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan, Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1358, 52
USPQ2d 1294, 1296-97 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, “the first determination in the § 102 (b) analysis
must be whether the subject of the barring activity met each of the limitations of the claims, and
thus was an embodiment of the claimed invention.” Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C., 178
F.3d 1378, 1383, 51 USPQ2d 1055, 1058-59 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In similar manner, in order to
demonstrate that the claimed product encompassed by one or more of the appealed claims was,
prima facie, in public use within the meaning of § 102 (b), the examiner must establish that the
claimed product was used for any purpose “by a person other than the inventor who is under no
limitation, restriction or obligation of secrecy to the inventor.’” See, e.g., Lough v. Brunswick
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007