Ex parte FINN et al. - Page 4




          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                

                                          4                                           



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007