The on-sale bar analysis begins by first determining whether the subject of the barring
activity met each of the limitations of the claim or would have rendered obvious the claimed
subject matter. See Scaltech Inc. v. Retec/Tetra L.L.C., 178 F.3d 1378, 1383, 51 USPQ2d 1055,
1058 (Fed. Cir. 1999); and Tee Air Inc. v. Dcnso Manufacturing Michigan Inc., 192 F.3d 1353,
1358, 52 USPQ2d 1294, 1296-97 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Anticipatio
We will assume, for the purpose of this part of the discussion that the Micrascan R system
was offered for sale more than a year prior to 4 April 1995, Lee's effective filing date. Based on
the record before us, however, van Engelen has failed to establish that the Micrascan H system
that was sold anticipates Lee claims 2 and 8.
The photos, schematics, and documentation that have been submitted into evidence
standing alone would not be sufficient to establish aprimafacie case of anticipation. The parts
shown in several of the schematics and photos are not labeled, and without some explanation the
schematics and photos are not particularly helpful. The documents labeled Micrascan I and R
System Comparison (Ex. 2032) and the Micrascan IJ Program Plan (Ex. 2033) are also not very
helpful, since neither document, standing alone, explains or clearly sets forth each element of Lee
claims 2 or 8. Van Engelen exhibits 2034 and 2035 are the best pieces of evidence that van
Engelen has submitted. These exhibits are apparently reproductions of the Micrascan H system.
Mr. Galburt testified that the exhibit 2034 is a true and accurate representation of the structural
design concept of the Micrascan H as it existed in the 1992 time-frame. Galburt also testified
that the exhibit 2035 is a true and accurate representation of the structural interconnections of the
Micrascan H as it existed in the 1992 time-frame (VE Ex. 2024 It 21 and 22).
-21-
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007