56
Syllabus
and drawings of "sufficient clearness and precision to enable those skilled in the matter" to produce the device, id., at 536. Pp. 60-63.
(b) Pfaff's nontextual argument—that longstanding precedent, buttressed by the interest in providing inventors with a clear standard identifying the onset of the 1-year period, justifies a special interpretation of "invention" in § 102(b)—is rejected. While reduction to practice provides sufficient evidence that an invention is complete, the facts of The Telephone Cases and this case show that such proof is not necessary in every case. Pp. 63-66.
(c) 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. Here, the acceptance of the purchase order prior to April 8, 1981, makes it clear that such an offer had been made, and there is no question that the sale was commercial. Second, the invention must be ready for patenting. That condition may be satisfied in at least two ways: by proof of reduction to practice before the critical date; or by 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. This condition is satisfied here because the drawings sent to the manufacturer before the critical date fully disclosed the invention. Pp. 67-69.
124 F. 3d 1429, affirmed.
Stevens, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Jerry R. Selinger argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Susan E. Powley and Jack A. Kanz.
C. Randall Bain argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Alan H. Blankenheimer, Patricia A. Hubbard, C. Mark Kittredge, and James D. Hall.
Jeffrey P. Minear argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Assistant Attorneys General Hunger and Klein, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, William Kanter, Alfred Mollin, David Siedman, Mark S. Popofsky, Nancy J. Linck, and Albin F. Drost.*
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for Global Gaming Technology, Inc., by Joseph M. Vanek; for the American Intellectual Prop-
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007