Appeal No. 2000-009
Application 08/742,426
citing Stevenson v. International Trade Comm’n, 612 F.2d 546, 550, 204 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA
1979).
It seems to us that, as argued by appellants, the documents presented in the Ford letter do
not evidence that the “parsol green” glass listed in the invoice of 9/11/88 and the purchase
notification of 2/13/89, shipped to Ford Glass Division R&D and stated to be used in windows in
Taurus cars at the Glass Division, is the source of the “SVG2” sample of “SGV Solar tint rec’d
1/90” and hand annotated to be “used in Arizona.” We further note in this respect, the use, in a
number of the Attachments, of the “SVG” identifier with respect to glass obtained from different
subsidiaries of Saint Gobain-Vitrage International (“SGV”)” and that Ford states that this group
of vendors provided other samples of glass after the 1988 purchase, including the purchase of
“super green tint glass” from Vegla Glaswerke, a Saint Gobain-Vitrage International subsidiary,
in 1989, shipped to the Glass Tech Center. Thus, there is reasonable basis in the record as
established by the Ford letter, to support our determination that the “SVG2” sample tested has
not been established as part of the glass purchased by Ford in 1988 by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Accordingly, the evidence in the Ford letter with respect to the St Gobain glass
establishes only that Ford was in possession of at least the “SVG2” sample of “SGV Solar tint
rec’d 1/90” obtained from St. Gobain or one of its subsidiaries as of “Jan 90,” the date of
Attachments C, D and D-1, which glass has the chemical and optical analysis reported in these
documents.
There are, however, a number of issues that arise with respect to whether this limited
evidence is sufficient to establish that a glass composition and a glass made therewith falling
within the appealed claims was in public use or on-sale within the meaning of § 102(b). First, as
the record now stands, there is no credible evidence establishing the circumstances under which
Ford obtained the “SVG2” sample of “SGV Solar tint rec’d 1/90.” See Epstein, 32 F.3d at
1565-66, 31 USPQ2d at 1821-22. We are mindful of appellants’ arguments with respect to the
inaccuracies and trustworthiness of this evidence. However, as the court pointed out in Epstein,
“appellants are free to investigate hearsay assertions relied upon by an examiner.” 32 F.3d at
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007