§ 1.633(a) was not filed at the appropriate time. Allowing
Winter to argue the unpatentability of the Bergfalk claim in
Winter's principal brief under the circumstances would unfairly
prejudice Bergfalk since Winter did not file or serve the Beach
Break Cafe invoices, the letter from Dwelley, or the list of 10
companies said to be selling snowboard key chains, until
8 December 2000, after both Winter and Bergfalk had filed their
cases-in-chief (See FF 20, 21, and 22); and
(2) Even if we were to consider evidence that Winter has
filed indicating that snowboard key chains were commercially
available prior to 13 February 1997, Winter has not shown that
the commercially available key chains anticipate (35 USC § 102)
or would have rendered obvious (35 USC § 103) the snowboard key
chain claimed by Bergfalk.
Anticipation requires the invention to have been known in
the art in the detail of the claim; that is, all of the elements
and limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior
reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp v.
Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291
(Fed. Cir. 2001). Winter provides no description of the
snowboard key chains he says he sold in 1991. The invoices and
letter supplied by Winter (attachments to Paper 32) do not
provide a description of the snowboard key chains said to have
been sold by Winter in 1991. Winter has not shown that the key
chains he says he sold in 1991 have all the elements and
limitations of the key chain of the Bergfalk claim or
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007