Appeal No. 1998-1898
Application 08/497,721
description in the article using the article as a § 102(b)
printed publication. Instead, the Examiner relies on the
AIN News article as prima facie evidence that the claimed
subject matter was in "public use" or "on sale." Appellants
admit that "[t]he Examiner is correct in positing that the
AIN news article is a prima facie [case] of public use and
on sale activity" (Br6). However, Appellants indicate that
Mr. Henningson was ignorant of the construed meanings of his
statement in the context of what actually occurred (Br6) and
have submitted Exhibits A-F and a Declaration by co-inventor
William C. Catellier as evidence to rebut any prima facie
case of public use or on sale activity of the claimed
invention prior to the critical date.
We agree with Appellants' arguments in the Brief that
the evidence clearly establishes that there was no public
use or on sale activity of the claimed subject matter prior
to the critical date. We adopt Appellants' reasons as our
own. In addition, we provide the following comments.
Appellants have introduced persuasive evidence that
there was no sale or offer for sale of the claimed invention
before the critical data. Importantly, the participants in
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007