Appeal No. 1999-1002 Application No. 08/672,493 We begin our analysis by indicating that the appellants, without conceding public use, have acknowledged that certain activities did indeed occur more than one year before the application filing date of June 26, 1996. Appeal brief, page 5. Appellants field-tested flow coated fuser rolls beginning on or about February 1994, and concluding on or about November 10, 1995. Appellants also acknowledge that the fuser rolls tested were made via the claimed method. Briefly, coated fuser rolls were tested by providing the rolls to a number of copy machines located at several testing sites that leased these machines from appellants' assignee Xerox Corp. These rolls were placed inside the machines and, once placed, were not visible to the field test users. The machines were located in secure areas of the testing sites and their access was limited to those having the appropriate authority to use the machines, including test site employees and Xerox technicians. There were no express written confidentiality agreements between the appellant/Xerox Corporation and the field test users but there was an understanding that the flow coated fuser rolls were experimental and information concerning them should be kept confidential. See Brief, page 6. Appellants state that the 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007