any of the instruments or components of the disclosed mechanism anywhere other than on the
reaction frame or on the support frame. For these reasons, there is support for the claimed
stationary part of the measuring system fastened to the second frame. Based on the record, van
Engelen has failed to demonstrate otherwise. Again, van Engelen's failure to discuss the '558
specification is fatal to its motion.
For all of the above reasons, van Engelen, through its preliminary motion 6, has failed to
sufficiently demonstrate that Lee should be denied benefit of the '558 application. Accordingly,
van Engelen preliminary motion 6 is denied.
Van Engelen preliminqU motion 5
Van Engelen moves under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) farjudgment against Lee on the basis that
Lee claims 2 and 8 are unpatentable based on an on sale bar under 35 U.S.C § 102(b). At the
outset, we note that van Engelen has failed to attach an appendix to its preliminary motion as
specified in Section 26(d) of the Standing Order (Paper I at 25)). Despite this shortcoming, we
consider van Engelen's motion on the merits. We further note that the on sale bar is prior art to
van Engelen (transcript at 65, lines 17-23), and would likewise apply to its claims.
The on-sale bar applies when two conditions are satisfied before the critical date. First,
the product must be the subject of a commercial offer for sale. Second, the invention must be
ready for patenting. Pfaff v. Wells Elec., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 67, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1646-47
(1998). The second prong maybe satisfied by (1) proof of reduction to practice before the
critical date; or (2) proof that prior to the critical date the inventor had prepared drawings or other
descriptions of the invention that were sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to
practice the invention. 525 U.S. at 67, 48 USPQ2d at 1647.
-20-
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007