{"section":{"filename":"s2133.html","chapter":"2100","section_number":"2133","title":"Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)","revision_tag":"R-01.2024","bytes":198235,"sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef","subsection_count":16,"max_depth":3,"subsections":[{"number":"2133.01","title":"Rejections of Continuation-In-Part (CIP) Applications","revision_tag":"R-10.2019","depth":1},{"number":"2133.02","title":"Rejections Based on Publications and Patents","revision_tag":"R-11.2013","depth":1},{"number":"2133.02(a)","title":"Overcoming a Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) Rejection Based on a Printed Publication or Patent","revision_tag":"R-10.2019","depth":2},{"number":"2133.03","title":"Rejections Based on “Public Use” or “On Sale”","revision_tag":"R-01.2024","depth":1},{"number":"2133.03(a)","title":"“Public Use”","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","depth":2},{"number":"2133.03(b)","title":"“On Sale”","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","depth":2},{"number":"2133.03(c)","title":"The “Invention”","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","depth":2},{"number":"2133.03(d)","title":"“In This Country”","revision_tag":"R-10.2019","depth":2},{"number":"2133.03(e)","title":"Permitted Activity; Experimental Use","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","depth":2},{"number":"2133.03(e)(1)","title":"Commercial Exploitation","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","depth":3},{"number":"2133.03(e)(2)","title":"Intent","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","depth":3},{"number":"2133.03(e)(3)","title":"“Completeness” of the Invention","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","depth":3},{"number":"2133.03(e)(4)","title":"Factors Indicative of an Experimental Purpose","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","depth":3},{"number":"2133.03(e)(5)","title":"Experimentation and Degree of Supervision and Control","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","depth":3},{"number":"2133.03(e)(6)","title":"Permitted Experimental Activity and Testing","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","depth":3},{"number":"2133.03(e)(7)","title":"Activity of an Independent Third Party Inventor","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","depth":3}]},"quality":"structured","cited_authorities":{"file_section":"2133","cases":[{"key":"case:610f.2d786","slug":"in-re-theis","short_name":"In re Theis","canonical_citation":"In re Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 204 USPQ 188 (CCPA 1979)","decision_year":1979,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Because the statute bars a patent when an invention is placed 'on sale,' a mere offer to sell—even one rejected or never received—is sufficient commercial activity to create an on-sale bar.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":6,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:242f.2d779","slug":"in-re-blaisdell","short_name":"In re Blaisdell","canonical_citation":"In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 113 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1957)","decision_year":1957,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Where a prototype is considered complete by the inventor and all experimentation on the invention has ceased, unrestricted disposal of the prototype constitutes a public-use or on-sale bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":4,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:343f.2d980","slug":"in-re-foster","short_name":"In re Foster","canonical_citation":"In re Foster, 343 F.2d 980, 145 USPQ 166 (CCPA 1965)","decision_year":1965,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"A pre-AIA 102(b) statutory bar arises when the public possessed the invention more than one year before filing, and the bar extends to obvious variants of the prior art; a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit can overcome a 102(a) rejection but not a statutory bar.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":3,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:424f.3d1374","slug":"invitrogen-corp-v-biocrest-manufacturing-l-p-2005","short_name":"Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Manufacturing L.P.","canonical_citation":"Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Manufacturing L.P., 424 F.3d 1374, 76 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","decision_year":2005,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"The public use bar arises where the invention is in public use before the critical date and is ready for patenting; the public use test asks whether the use was accessible to the public or commercially exploited.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":3,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:45f.3d1562","slug":"ferag-ag-v-quipp-inc","short_name":"Ferag AG v. Quipp, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Ferag AG v. Quipp, Inc., 45 F.3d 1562, 33 USPQ2d 1512 (Fed. Cir. 1995)","decision_year":1995,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"An impermissible sale occurs when there is a definite sale or offer to sell more than one year before the critical date and the subject matter of the sale fully anticipates the claimed invention or would have rendered it obvious by its addition to the prior art.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":3,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:525u.s.55","slug":"pfaff-v-wells-elecs-inc","short_name":"Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc.","canonical_citation":"Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 48 USPQ2d 1641 (1998)","decision_year":1998,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":"The on-sale bar is triggered when the invention is both (1) the subject of a commercial offer for sale not primarily for experimental purposes and (2) ready for patenting.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":3,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:254f.3d1041","slug":"group-one-ltd-v-hallmark-cards-inc","short_name":"Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 59 USPQ2d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2001)","decision_year":2001,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Whether a communication rises to the level of a commercial offer for sale is determined under traditional contract-law principles, looking to the Uniform Commercial Code.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":3,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:761f.2d671","slug":"in-re-caveney","short_name":"In re Caveney","canonical_citation":"In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 226 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A sale is a contract between parties in which the seller agrees to give and pass rights of property in return for the buyer's payment or promise to pay for the things bought or sold.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":3,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:489f.2d1359","slug":"dart-indus-v-e-i-du-pont-de-nemours-co","short_name":"Dart Indus. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.","canonical_citation":"Dart Indus. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 489 F.2d 1359, 179 USPQ 392 (7th Cir. 1973)","decision_year":1973,"court":"7th Cir.","holding_summary":"The public use and on-sale bars are distinct grounds of unpatentability, and either may apply when the other does not; additionally, affidavits swearing behind a reference may admit that the invention was complete more than one year before filing.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:451f.2d849","slug":"hobbs-v-united-states","short_name":"Hobbs v. United States","canonical_citation":"Hobbs v. United States, 451 F.2d 849, 171 USPQ 713 (5th Cir. 1971)","decision_year":1971,"court":"5th Cir.","holding_summary":"In pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b), \"public\" modifies only \"use,\" not \"sale\"; on-sale activity need not be public to bar a patent.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:139s.ct.628","slug":"helsinn-healthcare-s-a-v-teva-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc","short_name":"Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 628, 129 USPQ2d 1189 (2019)","decision_year":2019,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":"Congress did not alter the meaning of \"on sale\" when it enacted the AIA; an inventor's sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential can qualify as invalidating prior art.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:887f.2d1056","slug":"rca-corp-v-data-gen-corp","short_name":"RCA Corp. v. Data Gen. Corp.","canonical_citation":"RCA Corp. v. Data Gen. Corp., 887 F.2d 1056, 12 USPQ2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","decision_year":1989,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Policies underlying the on-sale bar include obtaining prompt widespread public disclosure of new inventions through patents and preventing the inventor from commercially exploiting the invention's exclusivity substantially beyond the statutorily authorized period.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:917f.2d544","slug":"manville-salescorp-v-paramount-sys-inc","short_name":"Manville SalesCorp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc.","canonical_citation":"Manville SalesCorp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 16 USPQ2d 1587 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","decision_year":1990,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"The public use and on-sale bars serve to discourage removal of inventions from the public domain that the public justifiably believes are freely available; whether the public becomes informed of an invention through a non-inventor's use depends on the factual circumstances measured against those policies.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:104u.s.333","slug":"egbert-v-lippmann","short_name":"Egbert v. Lippmann","canonical_citation":"Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333 (1881)","decision_year":1881,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":"A single, well-defined public use of one embodiment of the invention by even one person is sufficient to invoke the public-use bar; multiple uses or users are not required.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:793f.2d1261","slug":"moleculon-research-corp-v-cbs-inc","short_name":"Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 229 USPQ 805 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","decision_year":1986,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"An assignment or sale of the rights in an invention and potential patent rights is not a sale of the invention itself and will not by itself trigger the on-sale bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:714f.2d1127","slug":"in-re-smith-1983","short_name":"In re Smith","canonical_citation":"In re Smith, 714 F.2d 1127, 218 USPQ 976 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","decision_year":1983,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Public use under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) occurs when the inventor allows another person to use the invention without limitation, restriction, or obligation of secrecy; the experimental use exception does not extend to market testing aimed at gauging consumer demand, which is commercial exploitation rather than experimentation.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:524f.2d33","slug":"dunlop-holdings-ltd-v-ram-golf-corp","short_name":"Dunlop Holdings, Ltd. v. Ram Golf Corp.","canonical_citation":"Dunlop Holdings, Ltd. v. Ram Golf Corp., 524 F.2d 33, 188 USPQ 481 (7th Cir. 1975)","decision_year":1975,"court":"7th Cir.","holding_summary":"Even a secret use by another of a machine or process is a \"public\" use if its details are ascertainable by inspection or analysis of the product sold or publicly displayed; a non-informing public use may still support rejections based on prior invention by another.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:721f.2d1540","slug":"w-l-gore-assoc-inc-v-garlock-inc","short_name":"W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.","canonical_citation":"W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","decision_year":1983,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"The obviousness decisionmaker must cast the mind back to the time of invention and avoid hindsight; distilling an invention to its 'gist' or 'thrust' violates the requirement to consider the claimed subject matter as a whole. The sale of a product before the critical date can trigger the on-sale bar, and best mode is not violated where an undisclosed mode would be used by those of ordinary skill.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:827f.3d1363","slug":"medicines-co-v-hospira-inc","short_name":"Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., 827 F.3d 1363, 119 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2016)","decision_year":2016,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"To trigger the on-sale bar, a product must be the subject of a commercial sale or offer bearing the general hallmarks of a sale under UCC section 2-106; contract and commercial law principles apply, and passage of title is a helpful indicator that an invention is on sale.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:970f.2d834","slug":"atlantic-thermoplastics-co-v-faytex-corp","short_name":"Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp.","canonical_citation":"Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp., 970 F.2d 834, 23 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","decision_year":1992,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Even a single sale or offer to sell the invention may bar patentability under the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) on-sale bar.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:366f.3d1336","slug":"elan-corp-plc-v-andrx-pharms-inc","short_name":"Elan Corp., PLC v. Andrx Pharms. Inc.","canonical_citation":"Elan Corp., PLC v. Andrx Pharms. Inc., 366 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","decision_year":2004,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"An assignment or sale of the rights in an invention and its potential patent rights is not a sale of the invention itself and does not by itself trigger the pre-AIA 102(b) on-sale bar.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:286f.3d1326","slug":"in-re-kollar","short_name":"In re Kollar","canonical_citation":"In re Kollar, 286 F.3d 1326, 62 USPQ2d 1425 (Fed. Cir. 2002)","decision_year":2002,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Licenses that effectively transfer the product itself, such as a standard computer software license, can trigger the on-sale bar, whereas licenses merely granting rights to an invention, such as exclusive marketing or potential patent rights, do not per se trigger the bar.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:163f.3d1326","slug":"weatherchem-corp-v-j-l-clark-inc","short_name":"Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark, Inc., 163 F.3d 1326, 49 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1998)","decision_year":1998,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A purchase agreement signed before the critical date constitutes a commercial offer for sale triggering the on-sale bar; it is immaterial that delivery of the goods and exchange of money occurred only after the critical date.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:882f.2d1576","slug":"in-re-hamilton","short_name":"In re Hamilton","canonical_citation":"In re Hamilton, 882 F.2d 1576, 11 USPQ2d 1890 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","decision_year":1989,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"An invention embodied in a product completed and offered for sale before the critical date is subject to the on-sale bar, supporting that pre-critical-date sales of products made to unchanged specifications show reduction to practice.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:482f.2d426","slug":"robbins-co-v-lawrence-mfg-co","short_name":"Robbins Co. v. Lawrence Mfg. Co.","canonical_citation":"Robbins Co. v. Lawrence Mfg. Co., 482 F.2d 426, 178 USPQ 577 (9th Cir. 1973)","decision_year":1973,"court":"9th Cir.","holding_summary":"On-sale status under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) can be found where substantial activity prefatory to a sale occurs in the United States, even though the sale and delivery ultimately take place in a foreign country.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:299f.3d1336","slug":"allen-engg-corp-v-bartell-indus-inc","short_name":"Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc.","canonical_citation":"Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 63 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2002)","decision_year":2002,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"The experimental use doctrine asks whether the inventor's primary purpose at the time of the sale, determined from an objective evaluation of the surrounding facts, was to conduct experimentation; experimentation must be the primary purpose and any commercial exploitation merely incidental.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:276f.3d1347","slug":"ez-dock-v-schafer-sys-inc","short_name":"EZ Dock v. Schafer Sys., Inc.","canonical_citation":"EZ Dock v. Schafer Sys., Inc., 276 F.3d 1347, 61 USPQ2d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2002)","decision_year":2002,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"The experimental use inquiry turns on whether the inventor's primary purpose at the time of sale was to conduct experimentation, with any commercial exploitation being merely incidental.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:958f.2d1066","slug":"labounty-mfg-inc-v-u-s-intl-trade-commn","short_name":"LaBounty Mfg., Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n","canonical_citation":"LaBounty Mfg., Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 22 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","decision_year":1992,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A use or sale is experimental only if it represents a bona fide effort to perfect the invention or ascertain whether it will answer its intended purpose, with any commercial exploitation merely incidental; doubtful information should be submitted so materiality is resolved by the examiner.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:32f.4th1161","slug":"sunoco-partners-mktg-terminals-lp-v-u-s-venture-inc","short_name":"Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals LP v. U.S. Venture, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals LP v. U.S. Venture, Inc., 32 F.4th 1161, 2022 USPQ2d 417 (Fed. Cir. 2022)","decision_year":2022,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Experimentation is not the primary purpose of a sale where the testing was performed at a third party's location rather than the buyer's facility and could have been completed before the offer to sell was made.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:204uspq562","slug":"interroyal-corp-v-simmons-co","short_name":"Interroyal Corp. v. Simmons Co.","canonical_citation":"Interroyal Corp. v. Simmons Co., 204 USPQ 562 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)","decision_year":1979,"court":"S.D.N.Y.","holding_summary":"Advertising in publicity releases, brochures, and periodicals, and demonstration of models or prototypes at trade conventions, are activities indicative of a commercial, non-experimental public use of an invention.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:417f.3d1203","slug":"electromotive-div-of-gen-motors-corp-v-transportation-sys-div-of-gen-elec-co","short_name":"Electromotive Div. of Gen. Motors Corp. v. Transportation Sys. Div. of Gen. Elec. Co.","canonical_citation":"Electromotive Div. of Gen. Motors Corp. v. Transportation Sys. Div. of Gen. Elec. Co., 417 F.3d 1203, 75 USPQ2d 1650 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","decision_year":2005,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"In evaluating whether a pre-critical-date use or sale was experimental, the customer's awareness of the purported testing in the context of a sale is a critical attribute of experimentation.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:131uspq41","slug":"ex-parte-olah","short_name":"Ex parte Olah","canonical_citation":"Ex parte Olah, 131 USPQ 41 (Bd. App. 1960)","decision_year":1960,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"When a statutory filing period, such as the one-year foreign priority period or the one-year grace period, expires on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday, the period is extended so the application may be filed on the next business day.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:687f.2d450","slug":"in-re-katz-1982","short_name":"In re Katz","canonical_citation":"In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982)","decision_year":1982,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"\"Others\" under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) means any entity differing from the inventive entity by even one person; an inventor's own disclosure is not prior art against the inventor, since any other reading would negate the one-year grace period of 102(b).","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:804f.2d659","slug":"paperless-accounting-v-bay-area-rapid-transit-system","short_name":"Paperless Accounting v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System","canonical_citation":"Paperless Accounting v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659, 231 USPQ 649 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","decision_year":1986,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"When no claims of a continuation-in-part are supported by the parent application under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the effective filing date is the CIP's own filing date, and prior art with a critical date more than one year before that filing bars a patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:694f.3d1344","slug":"santarus-inc-v-par-pharmaceutical-inc","short_name":"Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 104 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2012)","decision_year":2012,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Claims in a continuation-in-part supported only by the CIP's disclosure take the CIP's effective filing date, so a patent issuing from the parent application may serve as prior art against CIP claims lacking support in the parent.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:112f.3d1561","slug":"studiengesellschaft-kohle-m-b-h-v-shell-oil-co","short_name":"Studiengesellschaft Kohle m.b.H. v. Shell Oil Co.","canonical_citation":"Studiengesellschaft Kohle m.b.H. v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 42 USPQ2d 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","decision_year":1997,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 requires that the earlier-filed application contain a disclosure complying with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for each claim in the later application; the benefit applies claim by claim and does not extend to claims with subject matter outside the earlier disclosure.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:16uspq2d1321","slug":"de-graffenried-v-united-states","short_name":"De Graffenried v. United States","canonical_citation":"De Graffenried v. United States, 16 USPQ2d 1321 (Cl. Ct. 1990)","decision_year":1990,"court":"Cl. Ct.","holding_summary":"The one-year grace period of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is extended to the next business day when it would otherwise end on a weekend or federal holiday, so intervening publications, patents, uses, or sales do not bar the patent.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:489u.s.141","slug":"bonito-boats-inc-v-thunder-craft-boats-inc","short_name":"Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 9 USPQ2d 1847 (1989)","decision_year":1989,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":"Once an inventor lifts the veil of secrecy from the work, the inventor must choose between the protection of a federal patent or dedication of the idea to the public at large.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:724f.2d965","slug":"tplabs-inc-v-professional-positioners-inc","short_name":"TPLabs., Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc.","canonical_citation":"TPLabs., Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc., 724 F.2d 965, 220 USPQ 577 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","decision_year":1984,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Mere public knowledge of an invention does not warrant rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b), which bars public use or sale, not public knowledge; public knowledge may instead support a rejection under pre-AIA 102(a).","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:386f.3d1371","slug":"bernhardt-l-l-c-v-collezione-europa-usa-inc","short_name":"Bernhardt, L.L.C. v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Bernhardt, L.L.C. v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc., 386 F.3d 1371, 72 USPQ2d 1901 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","decision_year":2004,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"The presence or absence of a confidentiality agreement is not dispositive of the public use issue, but is one factor to be considered in assessing all the evidence in light of the policies underlying the public use and on-sale bars.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:27uspq2d1492","slug":"ex-parte-c","short_name":"Ex parte C","canonical_citation":"Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (BPAI 1992)","decision_year":1992,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"Selling inventive seeds to growers paid to increase stock, with on-sale contract aspects and no apparent confidentiality requirements, rises to a commercial public use bar; separately, alleged unexpected results fail without a basis for judging the practical significance of the data.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:568f.2d369","slug":"bird-provision-co-v-owens-country-sausage-inc","short_name":"Bird Provision Co. v. Owens Country Sausage,Inc.","canonical_citation":"Bird Provision Co. v. Owens Country Sausage,Inc., 568 F.2d 369, 197 USPQ 134 (5th Cir. 1978)","decision_year":1978,"court":"5th Cir.","holding_summary":"Any nonsecret use of an invention by an independent third party in the ordinary course of business for trade or profit may be a public use, even without connection to the inventor.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:114f.2d28","slug":"gillman-v-stern","short_name":"Gillman v. Stern","canonical_citation":"Gillman v. Stern, 114 F.2d 28, 46 USPQ 430 (2d Cir. 1940)","decision_year":1940,"court":"2d Cir.","holding_summary":"Even a \"secret\" use by another of a machine or process to make a product is a public use if the details of the machine or process are ascertainable by inspection or analysis of the product that is sold or publicly displayed.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:107f.3d1505","slug":"lockwood-v-american-airlines-inc","short_name":"Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","decision_year":1997,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A device qualifies as prior art if it places the claimed features in the public's possession before the critical date, even if other, unclaimed aspects of the device remained proprietary and confidential.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:275f.3d1040","slug":"linear-tech-corp-v-micrel-inc","short_name":"Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc., 275 F.3d 1040, 61 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2001)","decision_year":2001,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Whether a commercial offer for sale has occurred is determined under traditional contract-law principles.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:434f.2d1042","slug":"strong-v-general-elec-co","short_name":"Strong v. General Elec. Co.","canonical_citation":"Strong v. General Elec. Co., 434 F.2d 1042, 168 USPQ 8 (5th Cir. 1970)","decision_year":1970,"court":"5th Cir.","holding_summary":"An invention may be \"on sale\" even though the sale was conditional; conditioning a sale on buyer satisfaction does not, without more, establish that the sale was for an experimental purpose.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:524f.2d1393","slug":"in-re-dybel","short_name":"In re Dybel","canonical_citation":"In re Dybel, 524 F.2d 1393, 187 USPQ 593 (CCPA 1975)","decision_year":1975,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"A sale need not be for profit to trigger the on-sale bar; if the sale was for commercial exploitation of the invention, it is \"on sale\" even though the seller realized no profit.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:94u.s.92","slug":"consolidatedfruit-jar-co-v-wright","short_name":"ConsolidatedFruit-Jar Co. v. Wright","canonical_citation":"ConsolidatedFruit-Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U.S. 92 (1876)","decision_year":1876,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":"Even a single sale or offer to sell the invention may bar patentability under the on-sale bar; separately, abandonment through dedication to the public may be express or implied from the inventor's actions or inactions.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:816f.2d647","slug":"umc-elecs-v-united-states","short_name":"UMC Elecs. v. United States","canonical_citation":"UMC Elecs. v. United States, 816 F.2d 647, 2 USPQ2d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1987)","decision_year":1987,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Even a rejected offer for sale is sufficient commercial activity to create an on-sale bar; a mere offer to sell, without consummation or delivery, can bar a patent.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:849f.2d1461","slug":"buildex-v-kason-indus-inc","short_name":"Buildex v. Kason Indus.,Inc.","canonical_citation":"Buildex v. Kason Indus.,Inc., 849 F.2d 1461, 7 USPQ2d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","decision_year":1988,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A sale need not be consummated, and the offered item need not be delivered, for the on-sale bar to operate; a commercial offer before the critical date can suffice.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:787f.2d1577","slug":"j-a-la-porte-inc-v-norfolk-dredging-co","short_name":"J. A. La Porte, Inc. v. Norfolk Dredging Co.","canonical_citation":"J. A. La Porte, Inc. v. Norfolk Dredging Co., 787 F.2d 1577, 229 USPQ 435 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","decision_year":1986,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Goods need not be on hand and transferred at the time of a sale or offer for the on-sale bar to apply; the date of the offer for sale is the effective date of the on-sale activity.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:103f.3d1538","slug":"micro-chemical-inc-v-great-plains-chemical-co","short_name":"Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co.","canonical_citation":"Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co., 103 F.3d 1538, 41 USPQ2d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","decision_year":1997,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"An offer to sell does not trigger the on-sale bar where the inventor is not close to completing the invention at the time of the offer and has not demonstrated a high likelihood the invention would work for its intended purpose.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:758f.2d613","slug":"shatterproof-glass-corp-v-libbey-owens-ford-co","short_name":"Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co.","canonical_citation":"Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 225 USPQ 634 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"An offer to sell does not trigger the on-sale bar where there is no evidence that the samples shown to potential customers were made by the claimed new process and apparatus.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:731f.2d831","slug":"barmag-barmer-maschinenfabrik-ag-v-murata-mach-ltd","short_name":"Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach., Ltd.","canonical_citation":"Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach., Ltd., 731 F.2d 831, 221 USPQ 561 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","decision_year":1984,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"An offer to sell accompanied by a 'make shift' model of the inventive product shown to potential purchasers is sufficient to trigger the on-sale bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:307u.s.5","slug":"electric-storage-battery-co-v-shimadzu","short_name":"Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu","canonical_citation":"Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu, 307 U.S. 5, 41 USPQ 155 (1938)","decision_year":1938,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":"An on-sale bar arises even when a third party who obtained the invention from the inventor placed it on sale without the inventor's consent or knowledge that the sold article embodied the invention.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:469f.supp.801","slug":"cts-corp-v-electro-materials-corp-of-america","short_name":"CTS Corp. v. Electro Materials Corp. of America","canonical_citation":"CTS Corp. v. Electro Materials Corp. of America, 469 F. Supp. 801, 202 USPQ 22 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)","decision_year":1979,"court":"S.D.N.Y.","holding_summary":"If an invention is placed on sale by a third party who obtained it from the inventor, the on-sale bar applies even if the inventor did not consent to the sale or know the invention was embodied in the sold article.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:904f.2d1571","slug":"envirotech-corp-v-westech-engg-inc","short_name":"Envirotech Corp. v. Westech Eng’g, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Envirotech Corp. v. Westech Eng’g, Inc., 904 F.2d 1571, 15 USPQ2d 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","decision_year":1990,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"What the purchaser reasonably believes the inventor is offering is relevant to whether an offer is of the patented invention; a proposal referencing only a prior art design does not create an on-sale bar despite the supplier's uncommunicated intent to supply the new design.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:32f.3d1559","slug":"in-re-epstein","short_name":"In re Epstein","canonical_citation":"In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994)","decision_year":1994,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Database printouts or abstracts that are not themselves prior art publications may properly be relied on as evidence that the products they reference were sold, released, or installed early enough to establish a public use or on-sale bar.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:201f.3d1363","slug":"vanmoor-v-wal-mart-stores-inc","short_name":"Vanmoor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Vanmoor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 201 F.3d 1363, 53 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2000)","decision_year":2000,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A patent is barred where the invention was actually reduced to practice before being sold or offered for sale more than one year before the application's filing date; pre-critical-date sales of completed products made to unchanged specifications establish reduction to practice and satisfy the ready-for-patenting condition.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:182f.3d1315","slug":"abbott-labs-v-geneva-pharms-inc","short_name":"Abbott Labs v. Geneva Pharms., Inc.","canonical_citation":"Abbott Labs v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 182 F.3d 1315, 51 USPQ2d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1999)","decision_year":1999,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"If a product offered for sale inherently possesses each limitation of the claims, the invention is on sale, whether or not the parties to the transaction recognize that the product possesses the claimed characteristics.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:211f.3d588","slug":"stx-llc-v-brine","short_name":"STX LLC. v. Brine","canonical_citation":"STX LLC. v. Brine, 211 F.3d 588, 54 USPQ2d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000)","decision_year":2000,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A preamble phrase reciting only improved characteristics, such as 'which provides improved playing and handling characteristics,' is not a claim limitation; subjective qualities inherent in a sold product cannot serve as an escape hatch to circumvent the on-sale bar.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:183f.2d593","slug":"field-v-knowles","short_name":"Field v. Knowles","canonical_citation":"Field v. Knowles, 183 F.2d 593, 86 USPQ 373 (CCPA 1950)","decision_year":1950,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Actual reduction to practice in the on-sale bar context usually requires testing under actual working conditions demonstrating the invention's practical utility for its intended purpose beyond the probability of failure, unless the invention is so simple that its practical operativeness is clear.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:517f.2d1359","slug":"steinberg-v-seitz","short_name":"Steinberg v. Seitz","canonical_citation":"Steinberg v. Seitz, 517 F.2d 1359, 186 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1975)","decision_year":1975,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Actual reduction to practice in the on-sale bar context usually requires testing under actual working conditions demonstrating practical utility for the intended purpose beyond probability of failure, unless the invention's very simplicity makes its practical operativeness clear.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:714f.2d1144","slug":"d-l-auld-co-v-chroma-graphics-corp","short_name":"D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp.","canonical_citation":"D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp., 714 F.2d 1144, 219 USPQ 13 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","decision_year":1983,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Sale of a product made by a claimed method before the critical date forfeits the right to patent the method, even though the sale reveals nothing about the method to the public.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:269f.3d1321","slug":"scaltech-inc-v-retec-tetra-l-l-c","short_name":"Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C.","canonical_citation":"Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C., 269 F.3d 1321, 60 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2001)","decision_year":2001,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"An offer to perform a claimed process for consideration more than one year before filing triggers the on-sale bar, invalidating the patent.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:336f.3d1373","slug":"minton-v-natl-assn-of-securities-dealers","short_name":"Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers","canonical_citation":"Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, 336 F.3d 1373, 1378, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2003)","decision_year":2003,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A process is a series of acts. A whereby clause in a method claim is given no weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a positively recited step, and the sale of a device embodying a claimed method triggers the on-sale bar.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:383f.3d1303","slug":"poly-america-lp-v-gse-lining-tech-inc","short_name":"Poly-America LP v. GSE Lining Tech. Inc.","canonical_citation":"Poly-America LP v. GSE Lining Tech. Inc., 383 F.3d 1303, 72 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","decision_year":2004,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Preamble language that discloses a fundamental characteristic of the claimed invention, rather than a mere purpose or intended use, is a claim limitation. Sale of a prior art device merely capable of performing a claimed method, but not used to practice it before the critical date, is not an on-sale bar to the process.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:143u.s.587","slug":"gandy-v-main-belting-co","short_name":"Gandy v. Main Belting Co.","canonical_citation":"Gandy v. Main Belting Co., 143 U.S. 587 (1892)","decision_year":1892,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":"The \"on sale\" bar does not generally apply where both manufacture and delivery of the invention occur in a foreign country.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:593f.2d777","slug":"cts-corp-v-piher-intl-corp","short_name":"CTS Corp. v. Piher Int’l Corp.","canonical_citation":"CTS Corp. v. Piher Int’l Corp., 593 F.2d 777, 201 USPQ 649 (7th Cir. 1979)","decision_year":1979,"court":"7th Cir.","holding_summary":"An offer for sale by a foreign manufacturer that is communicated to a prospective purchaser in the United States before the critical date can trigger the on-sale bar, even though the sale and delivery occur abroad.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:740f.2d1573","slug":"pennwalt-corp-v-akzona-inc","short_name":"Pennwalt Corp. v. Akzona Inc.","canonical_citation":"Pennwalt Corp. v. Akzona Inc., 740 F.2d 1573, 222 USPQ 833 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","decision_year":1984,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A sale is experimental for purposes of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) only if it represents a bona fide effort to perfect the invention or ascertain whether it will serve its intended purpose; any commercial exploitation must be merely incidental to that primary experimental purpose.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:327f.2d669","slug":"ushakoff-v-united-states","short_name":"Ushakoff v. United States","canonical_citation":"Ushakoff v. United States, 327 F.2d 669, 140 USPQ 341 (Ct. Cl. 1964)","decision_year":1964,"court":"Ct. Cl.","holding_summary":"When a sale is alleged to have been primarily for experimental purposes, careful scrutiny of the objective factual circumstances surrounding the sale is essential in evaluating an on-sale bar.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:376f.2d384","slug":"cloud-v-standard-packaging-corp","short_name":"Cloud v. Standard Packaging Corp.","canonical_citation":"Cloud v. Standard Packaging Corp., 376 F.2d 384, 153 USPQ 317 (7th Cir. 1967)","decision_year":1967,"court":"7th Cir.","holding_summary":"Careful scrutiny of the objective factual circumstances surrounding a sale is essential in determining whether the sale's primary purpose was experimental rather than commercial exploitation.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:356f.2d24","slug":"cataphote-corp-v-desoto-chemical-coatings-inc","short_name":"Cataphote Corp. v. DeSoto Chemical Coatings,Inc.","canonical_citation":"Cataphote Corp. v. DeSoto Chemical Coatings,Inc., 356 F.2d 24, 148 USPQ 527 (9th Cir. 1966)","decision_year":1966,"court":"9th Cir.","holding_summary":"Displaying samples of an invention to prospective customers is a commercial activity evidencing commercial exploitation relevant to the public use and on-sale bars.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:165f.supp.307","slug":"chicopee-mfg-corp-v-columbus-fiber-mills-co","short_name":"Chicopee Mfg. Corp. v. Columbus Fiber Mills Co.","canonical_citation":"Chicopee Mfg. Corp. v. Columbus Fiber Mills Co., 165 F. Supp. 307, 118 USPQ 53 (M.D. Ga. 1958)","decision_year":1958,"court":"M.D. Ga.","holding_summary":"Displaying samples of the invention to prospective customers constitutes commercial activity that can place the invention on sale for purposes of the statutory bar.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:206uspq260","slug":"general-elec-co-v-united-states","short_name":"General Elec. Co. v. United States","canonical_citation":"General Elec. Co. v. United States, 206 USPQ 260 (Ct. Cl. 1979)","decision_year":1979,"court":"Ct. Cl.","holding_summary":"Demonstration of models or prototypes of an invention to others can constitute commercial exploitation indicative of a non-experimental public use.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:525f.2d1135","slug":"red-cross-mfg-v-toro-sales-co","short_name":"Red Cross Mfg. v. Toro Sales Co.","canonical_citation":"Red Cross Mfg. v. Toro Sales Co., 525 F.2d 1135, 188 USPQ 241 (7th Cir. 1975)","decision_year":1975,"court":"7th Cir.","holding_summary":"Demonstration of models or prototypes of an invention is among the activities evidencing commercial exploitation that can defeat a claim of experimental use under the public use and on-sale bars.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:144f.2d412","slug":"monogram-mfg-v-f-h-mfg","short_name":"Monogram Mfg. v. F. & H. Mfg.","canonical_citation":"Monogram Mfg. v. F. & H. Mfg., 144 F.2d 412, 62 USPQ 409 (9th Cir. 1944)","decision_year":1944,"court":"9th Cir.","holding_summary":"Sales activity sufficient to trigger the on-sale bar may be shown by demonstration of the invention even though no orders are actually obtained.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:188f.2d486","slug":"in-re-josserand","short_name":"In re Josserand","canonical_citation":"In re Josserand, 188 F.2d 486, 89 USPQ 371 (CCPA 1951)","decision_year":1951,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Use of an invention where an admission fee is charged constitutes a public use that can trigger the statutory bar.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:54f.2d195","slug":"greenewalt-v-stanley","short_name":"Greenewalt v. Stanley","canonical_citation":"Greenewalt v. Stanley, 54 F.2d 195, 12 USPQ 122 (3d Cir. 1931)","decision_year":1931,"court":"3d Cir.","holding_summary":"Use of an invention where an admission fee is charged constitutes a commercial exploitation that can trigger the public use bar.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:353f.2d704","slug":"akron-brass-co-v-elkhart-brass-mfg-inc","short_name":"Akron Brass, Co. v. Elkhart Brass Mfg.,Inc.","canonical_citation":"Akron Brass, Co. v. Elkhart Brass Mfg.,Inc., 353 F.2d 704, 147 USPQ 301 (7th Cir. 1965)","decision_year":1965,"court":"7th Cir.","holding_summary":"Advertising in publicity releases, brochures, and periodicals, and preparation of price lists, are commercial activities evidencing commercial exploitation relevant to the public use and on-sale bars.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:312f.2d393","slug":"tucker-aluminum-prods-v-grossman","short_name":"Tucker Aluminum Prods. v. Grossman","canonical_citation":"Tucker Aluminum Prods. v. Grossman, 312 F.2d 393, 136 USPQ 244 (9th Cir. 1963)","decision_year":1963,"court":"9th Cir.","holding_summary":"Advertising in publicity releases, brochures, and periodicals is a form of commercial activity that weighs against characterizing pre-critical-date public use or sales activity as experimental.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:815f.2d1478","slug":"harrington-mfg-co-v-powell-mfg-co","short_name":"Harrington Mfg. Co. v. Powell Mfg. Co.","canonical_citation":"Harrington Mfg. Co. v. Powell Mfg. Co., 815 F.2d 1478, 2 USPQ2d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","decision_year":1986,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"When a sale or offer occurs in an ordinary commercial environment and the goods leave the inventor's control, a secretly held subjective intent to experiment is unavailing without objective evidence; at a minimum, the customer must be made aware of the experimentation.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:984f.2d1182","slug":"paragon-podiatry-laboratory-inc-v-klm-labs-inc","short_name":"Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Labs., Inc.","canonical_citation":"Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Labs., Inc., 984 F.2d 1182, 25 USPQ2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993)","decision_year":1993,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Sales of inventive units to the trade as completed devices, without disclosing to buyers any involvement in alleged testing, trigger the on-sale bar; the inventor's secretly held belief that the units might be unsatisfactory does not alone establish experimental use, and misleading statements during prosecution can render a patent unenforceable.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:358f.supp.1257","slug":"skil-corp-v-rockwell-manufacturing-co","short_name":"Skil Corp. v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co.","canonical_citation":"Skil Corp. v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co., 358 F. Supp. 1257, 178 USPQ 562 (N.D. Ill. 1973)","decision_year":1973,"court":"N.D. Ill.","holding_summary":"If the evidence shows the inventor regarded the invention as complete, the fact that approval from an outside organization such as Underwriters' Laboratories was still pending does not negate that the invention was complete.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:503f.2d745","slug":"skil-corp-v-lucerne-products-inc","short_name":"Skil Corp. v. Lucerne Products Inc.","canonical_citation":"Skil Corp. v. Lucerne Products Inc., 503 F.2d 745, 183 USPQ 396 (7th Cir. 1974)","decision_year":1974,"court":"7th Cir.","holding_summary":"Where the record shows the inventor considered the invention complete, awaiting approval from an outside organization such as Underwriters' Laboratories does not normally negate completeness for on-sale bar purposes or convert commercial activity into experimental use.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:254f.2d342","slug":"watson-v-allen","short_name":"Watson v. Allen","canonical_citation":"Watson v. Allen, 254 F.2d 342, 117 USPQ 68 (D.C. Cir. 1958)","decision_year":1958,"court":"D.C. Cir.","holding_summary":"Whether a pre-critical-date sale falls within the experimental use exception turns on whether the inventor's primary purpose, objectively determined, was to conduct experimentation.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:123f.supp.506","slug":"general-motors-corp-v-bendix-aviation-corp","short_name":"General Motors Corp. v. Bendix Aviation Corp.","canonical_citation":"General Motors Corp. v. Bendix Aviation Corp., 123 F. Supp. 506, 102 USPQ 58 (N.D. Ind. 1954)","decision_year":1954,"court":"N.D. Ind.","holding_summary":"Testing an invention in the normal course of its technological development, including experimentation to determine utility, is generally permissible experimental activity that does not trigger the public use or on-sale bars.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:861f.2d1581","slug":"in-re-mann","short_name":"In re Mann","canonical_citation":"In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581, 8 USPQ2d 2030 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","decision_year":1988,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Public use of an ornamental design directed toward generating consumer interest in the aesthetics of the design, such as displaying a wrought iron table at a trade show, is not an experimental use.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:438f.2d72","slug":"magnetics-inc-v-arnold-engineering-co","short_name":"Magnetics, Inc. v. Arnold Engineering Co.","canonical_citation":"Magnetics, Inc. v. Arnold Engineering Co., 438 F.2d 72, 168 USPQ 392 (7th Cir. 1971)","decision_year":1971,"court":"7th Cir.","holding_summary":"The experimental use exception is personal to the inventor; testing or refinement not performed by the inventor or someone under the inventor's control or surveillance cannot be relied upon to avoid a statutory bar.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]}],"statutes":[{"key":"us_usc:35:102","slug":"35-usc-102","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102","mentions":75},{"key":"us_usc:35:100","slug":"35-usc-100","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 100","mentions":15},{"key":"us_usc:35:112","slug":"35-usc-112","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 112","mentions":8},{"key":"us_cfr:37:1.78","slug":"37-cfr-1-78","canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.78","mentions":6},{"key":"us_usc:35:119","slug":"35-usc-119","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 119","mentions":3},{"key":"us_usc:35:21","slug":"35-usc-21","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 21","mentions":2},{"key":"us_cfr:37:1.6","slug":"37-cfr-1-6","canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.6","mentions":2},{"key":"us_cfr:37:1.131","slug":"37-cfr-1-131","canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.131","mentions":2},{"key":"us_cfr:37:1.76","slug":"37-cfr-1-76","canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.76","mentions":2},{"key":"us_usc:35:101","slug":"35-usc-101","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 101","mentions":2},{"key":"us_cfr:37:1.10","slug":"37-cfr-1-10","canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.10","mentions":1},{"key":"us_usc:35:120","slug":"35-usc-120","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 120","mentions":1},{"key":"us_usc:35:103","slug":"35-usc-103","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 103","mentions":1},{"key":"us_usc:35:105","slug":"35-usc-105","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 105","mentions":1}],"cross_references":[{"key":"mpep:211","section_number":"211","title":"Claiming the Benefit of an Earlier Filing Date Under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 119(e)","exists":true,"mentions":3},{"key":"mpep:715","section_number":"715","title":"Swearing Behind a Reference — Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a)","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:2132","section_number":"2132","title":"Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)","exists":true,"mentions":3},{"key":"mpep:2136","section_number":"2136","title":"Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:2137","section_number":"2137","title":"Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f)","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:2138","section_number":"2138","title":"Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:2139","section_number":"2139","title":"Rejections Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102","exists":true,"mentions":2},{"key":"mpep:2150","section_number":"2150","title":"Examination Guidelines for 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 as Amended by the First Inventor To File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act","exists":true,"mentions":15},{"key":"mpep:2152","section_number":"2152","title":"Detailed Discussion of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b)","exists":true,"mentions":18},{"key":"mpep:2159","section_number":"2159","title":"Applicability Date Provisions and Determining Whether an Application Is Subject to the First Inventor To File Provisions of the AIA","exists":true,"mentions":15}],"form_paragraphs":[]},"structured_data":{"nodes":[{"id":"se_rgreyub5","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_rgreyub5","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203671","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2133","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)","children_ids":["pb_meyptejd","sb_mi6klvmh","pb_hzfr6g6i","pb_asrgqy7f","pb_ascybmwx","pb_zy7rjj6b","pb_34xmmbiq","pb_a22pb6dh","se_viypaj57","se_5d3wefkt","se_mogr5s4n","pb_6hm3jrjz"],"revision_tag":"R-01.2024"},{"id":"pb_meyptejd","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_meyptejd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications\n subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as\n set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See MPEP §\n 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to\n examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP §\n 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to those\n provisions. See MPEP § 2152 et seq. for a detailed\n discussion of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b).]

","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP § 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152 et seq. for a detailed discussion of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b).]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18b7d_7a","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_rgreyub5","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"st_qlhihx44","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_qlhihx44","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"100","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 100"},{"id":"st_chovvrcv","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_chovvrcv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","subsection_path":["a"],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)"},{"id":"se_a7ggpn7r","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_a7ggpn7r","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2159","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2159","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"stub-2159","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2159","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2159","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_vqgrrn3n","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_vqgrrn3n","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2150","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2150","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"stub-2150","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2150","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2150","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_m2bwsa3d","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_m2bwsa3d","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2152","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2152","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"stub-2152","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2152","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2152","children_ids":[]},{"id":"ls_iwgklxpa","node_type":"list","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/ls_iwgklxpa","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203685","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_style":"alpha_lower","nesting_depth":1,"host_section_id":"se_rgreyub5","parent_list_item_id":null,"item_ids":["li_d4nyymjq"]},{"id":"li_d4nyymjq","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_d4nyymjq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication\n in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more\n than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United\n States.\n
    • ","rendered_text_plain":"(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203685","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(b)","enumerator_ordinal":0,"parent_list_id":"ls_iwgklxpa","child_ids":null},{"id":"sb_mi6klvmh","node_type":"statutory_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/sb_mi6klvmh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203675","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","citation_title_text":"Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102","heading":"Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.","body_list_id":"ls_iwgklxpa","host_section_id":"se_rgreyub5"},{"id":"pb_hzfr6g6i","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_hzfr6g6i","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    *****

    ","rendered_text_plain":"*****","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203675/p.0","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"excluded_text","host_section_id":"se_rgreyub5","tags":["edit_history:excluded"]},{"id":"pb_asrgqy7f","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_asrgqy7f","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    *****

    ","rendered_text_plain":"*****","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203675/p.1","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"excluded_text","host_section_id":"se_rgreyub5","tags":["edit_history:excluded"]},{"id":"pb_ascybmwx","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ascybmwx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"I. THE 1-YEAR GRACE PERIOD IS EXTENDED TO THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY IF IT WOULD\n OTHERWISE END ON A HOLIDAY OR WEEKEND","rendered_text_plain":"I. THE 1-YEAR GRACE PERIOD IS EXTENDED TO THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY IF IT WOULD OTHERWISE END ON A HOLIDAY OR WEEKEND","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203671/b.0","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"I. THE 1-YEAR GRACE PERIOD IS EXTENDED TO THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY IF IT WOULD OTHERWISE END ON A HOLIDAY OR WEEKEND","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_rgreyub5"},{"id":"pb_zy7rjj6b","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_zy7rjj6b","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Publications, patents, public uses and sales must occur “more than one\n year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States” in order to bar a\n patent under pre-AIA\n 35 U.S.C. 102(b). However, publications, patents, public uses and\n sales will not bar a patent if the 1-year grace period otherwise ends on a Saturday,\n Sunday, or federal holiday and the application’s U.S. filing date is the next succeeding\n business day. Ex parte Olah, 131 USPQ 41 (Bd. App. 1960) and\n 35 U.S.C.\n 21(b). The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 21(b) still apply\n notwithstanding the provisions of 37 CFR 1.6(a)(2) and\n 37 CFR\n 1.10, which accord a filing date as of the date of deposit as\n Priority Mail Express® with the U.S. Postal Service and 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4),\n which accords a filing date as of the date of submission using the USPTO patent\n electronic filing system.\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Publications, patents, public uses and sales must occur “more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States” in order to bar a patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). However, publications, patents, public uses and sales will not bar a patent if the 1-year grace period otherwise ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday and the application’s U.S. filing date is the next succeeding business day. Ex parte Olah, 131 USPQ 41 (Bd. App. 1960) and 35 U.S.C. 21(b). The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 21(b) still apply notwithstanding the provisions of 37 CFR 1.6(a)(2) and 37 CFR 1.10, which accord a filing date as of the date of deposit as Priority Mail Express® with the U.S. Postal Service and 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), which accords a filing date as of the date of submission using the USPTO patent electronic filing system.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203695","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_rgreyub5"},{"id":"cs_2t5d55b3","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_2t5d55b3","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Olah, 131 USPQ 41 (1960)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Ex parte Olah","canonical_citation":"Ex parte Olah, 131 USPQ 41 (BPAI 1960)","all_citations":["131 USPQ 41"],"decision_year":1960,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"st_jftolmqq","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_jftolmqq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","subsection_path":["b"],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)"},{"id":"st_cmsu6wxg","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_cmsu6wxg","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"21","subsection_path":["b"],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 21(b)"},{"id":"st_vt6bl6ys","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_vt6bl6ys","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_cfr","authority_title_num":"37","authority_section_num":"1.6","subsection_path":["a","2"],"canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.6(a)(2)"},{"id":"st_zjce26aw","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_zjce26aw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_cfr","authority_title_num":"37","authority_section_num":"1.10","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.10"},{"id":"st_ujo54cff","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_ujo54cff","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_cfr","authority_title_num":"37","authority_section_num":"1.6","subsection_path":["a","4"],"canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.6(a)(4)"},{"id":"pb_34xmmbiq","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_34xmmbiq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"II. THE 1-YEAR TIME BAR IS MEASURED FROM THE U.S. FILING DATE","rendered_text_plain":"II. THE 1-YEAR TIME BAR IS MEASURED FROM THE U.S. FILING DATE","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203671/b.2","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"II. THE 1-YEAR TIME BAR IS MEASURED FROM THE U.S. FILING DATE","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_rgreyub5"},{"id":"pb_a22pb6dh","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_a22pb6dh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    If one discloses one's own work more than 1 year before the filing of\n the patent application, that person is barred from obtaining a patent. In re\n Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 454, 215 USPQ 14, 17 (CCPA 1982). The 1-year time bar\n is measured from the U.S. filing date. Thus, applicant will be barred from obtaining a\n patent if the public came into possession of the invention on a date before the 1-year\n grace period ending with the U.S. filing date. It does not matter how the public came\n into possession of the invention. Public possession could occur by a public use, public\n sale, a publication, a patent or any combination of these. In addition, the prior art\n need not be identical to the claimed invention but will bar patentability if it is an\n obvious variant thereof. In re Foster, 343 F.2d 980, 145 USPQ 166\n (CCPA 1966). See MPEP § 2139.01 regarding the effective\n U.S. filing date of a claimed invention in an application. \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"If one discloses one's own work more than 1 year before the filing of the patent application, that person is barred from obtaining a patent. In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 454, 215 USPQ 14, 17 (CCPA 1982). The 1-year time bar is measured from the U.S. filing date. Thus, applicant will be barred from obtaining a patent if the public came into possession of the invention on a date before the 1-year grace period ending with the U.S. filing date. It does not matter how the public came into possession of the invention. Public possession could occur by a public use, public sale, a publication, a patent or any combination of these. In addition, the prior art need not be identical to the claimed invention but will bar patentability if it is an obvious variant thereof. In re Foster, 343 F.2d 980, 145 USPQ 166 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP § 2139.01 regarding the effective U.S. filing date of a claimed invention in an application.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203714","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_rgreyub5"},{"id":"cs_v2dbagsv","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_v2dbagsv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450 (1982)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"In re Katz","canonical_citation":"In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982)","all_citations":["687 F.2d 450","215 USPQ 14"],"decision_year":1982,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_nvxziasq","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_nvxziasq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Foster, 343 F.2d 980 (1966)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"In re Foster","canonical_citation":"In re Foster, 343 F.2d 980, 145 USPQ 166 (CCPA 1966)","all_citations":["343 F.2d 980","145 USPQ 166"],"decision_year":1966,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"se_kswaud2i","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_kswaud2i","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2139","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2139","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"stub-2139","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2139","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2139","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_viypaj57","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_viypaj57","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_01","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_01","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203726","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2133.01","chapter":"2100","depth":1,"title":"Rejections of Continuation-In-Part (CIP) Applications","children_ids":["pb_k2cuyqce","pb_ggzvz364","pb_rxzmofbc","pb_kjk5bcaz"],"revision_tag":"R-10.2019","parent_section_id":"se_rgreyub5"},{"id":"pb_k2cuyqce","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_k2cuyqce","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    [Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications\n subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA\n as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See\n MPEP\n § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is\n subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP §\n 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to\n those provisions. See MPEP § 2152 et seq. for a detailed\n discussion of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and\n (b).]

    ","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP § 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152 et seq. for a detailed discussion of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b).]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18bbc_72","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_viypaj57","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"pb_ggzvz364","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ggzvz364","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    The effective filing date of a claimed invention is determined on a\n claim-by-claim basis and not an application-by-application basis. See\n MPEP §\n 2139.01 for guidance in determining the effective filing date\n of a claimed invention under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"The effective filing date of a claimed invention is determined on a claim-by-claim basis and not an application-by-application basis. See MPEP § 2139.01 for guidance in determining the effective filing date of a claimed invention under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203730","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_viypaj57"},{"id":"st_wrfmgtn5","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_wrfmgtn5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102"},{"id":"pb_rxzmofbc","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_rxzmofbc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    When applicant files a continuation-in-part application,\n none of whose claims are supported by the parent application under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 112, first paragraph, the effective filing date is the filing date\n of the child CIP. Any prior art disclosing the invention or an obvious variant thereof\n having a critical reference date more than 1 year prior to the filing date of the child\n will bar the issuance of a patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). \n Paperless Accounting v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659, 665,\n 231 USPQ 649, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1986). \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"When applicant files a continuation-in-part application, none of whose claims are supported by the parent application under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, the effective filing date is the filing date of the child CIP. Any prior art disclosing the invention or an obvious variant thereof having a critical reference date more than 1 year prior to the filing date of the child will bar the issuance of a patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Paperless Accounting v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659, 665, 231 USPQ 649, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1986).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2e6aa_1e0ed_115","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_viypaj57"},{"id":"cs_gsvmfbzk","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_gsvmfbzk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Paperless Accounting v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659 (1986)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Paperless Accounting v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System","canonical_citation":"Paperless Accounting v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659, 231 USPQ 649 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","all_citations":["804 F.2d 659","231 USPQ 649"],"decision_year":1986,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"st_35hzro2v","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_35hzro2v","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"112","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 112"},{"id":"pb_kjk5bcaz","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_kjk5bcaz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Any claim that only contains subject matter that is\n fully supported in compliance with the statutory requirements of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 112, first paragraph, by the parent application of a CIP will have\n the effective filing date of the parent application. On the other hand, any claim that\n contains a limitation that is only supported as required by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 112, first paragraph, by the disclosure of the CIP application\n will have the effective filing date of the CIP application. See, e.g.,\n Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 104 USPQ2d 1641\n (Fed. Cir. 2012)(patent issuing from parent application was relied upon as prior art\n against the claims in CIPs that did not find support in the parent application);\n Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.H. v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561,\n 1564, 42 USPQ2d 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(“To qualify for an earlier filing date, section\n 120 requires, inter alia, that the earlier-filed U.S. patent\n application contain a disclosure which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, p 1 (1994) for each\n claim in the newly filed application. Thus, this benefit only applies to claims that\n recite subject matter adequately described in an earlier application, and does not\n extend to claims with subject matter outside the description in the earlier\n application.”). \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Any claim that only contains subject matter that is fully supported in compliance with the statutory requirements of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, by the parent application of a CIP will have the effective filing date of the parent application. On the other hand, any claim that contains a limitation that is only supported as required by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, by the disclosure of the CIP application will have the effective filing date of the CIP application. See, e.g., Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 104 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2012)(patent issuing from parent application was relied upon as prior art against the claims in CIPs that did not find support in the parent application); Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.H. v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 1564, 42 USPQ2d 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(“To qualify for an earlier filing date, section 120 requires, inter alia, that the earlier-filed U.S. patent application contain a disclosure which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, p 1 (1994) for each claim in the newly filed application. Thus, this benefit only applies to claims that recite subject matter adequately described in an earlier application, and does not extend to claims with subject matter outside the description in the earlier application.”).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2e6aa_2078b_1ef","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_viypaj57"},{"id":"cs_y3edb2fs","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_y3edb2fs","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344 (2012)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 104 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2012)","all_citations":["694 F.3d 1344","104 USPQ2d 1641"],"decision_year":2012,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_gfnvdymr","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_gfnvdymr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.H. v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561 (1997)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.H. v. Shell Oil Co.","canonical_citation":"Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.H. v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 42 USPQ2d 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","all_citations":["112 F.3d 1561","42 USPQ2d 1674"],"decision_year":1997,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"se_5d3wefkt","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_5d3wefkt","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_02","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_02","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-11.2013","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203739","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2133.02","chapter":"2100","depth":1,"title":"Rejections Based on Publications and Patents","children_ids":["pb_axhatsf2","pb_ytlheq52","pb_2oww5ljy","pb_54ou6c4n","pb_zom2pjr4","se_frftj7fi"],"revision_tag":"R-11.2013","parent_section_id":"se_rgreyub5"},{"id":"pb_axhatsf2","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_axhatsf2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-11.2013","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    [Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications\n subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA\n as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See\n MPEP\n § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is\n subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP §\n 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to\n those provisions. See MPEP § 2152 et seq. for a detailed\n discussion of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and\n (b).]

    ","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP § 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152 et seq. for a detailed discussion of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b).]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18bd7_317","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_5d3wefkt","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"pb_ytlheq52","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ytlheq52","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-11.2013","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"I. APPLICANT’S OWN WORK WHICH WAS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC BEFORE THE GRACE PERIOD\n MAY BE USED IN A PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) REJECTION","rendered_text_plain":"I. APPLICANT’S OWN WORK WHICH WAS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC BEFORE THE GRACE PERIOD MAY BE USED IN A PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) REJECTION","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203739/b.0","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"I. APPLICANT’S OWN WORK WHICH WAS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC BEFORE THE GRACE PERIOD MAY BE USED IN A PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) REJECTION","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_5d3wefkt"},{"id":"pb_2oww5ljy","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_2oww5ljy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-11.2013","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    “Any invention described in a printed publication more than one year\n prior to the date of a patent application is prior art under Section 102(b),\n even if the printed publication was authored by the patent applicant.” De\n Graffenried v.United States, 16 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 n.7 (Cl. Ct. 1990). “Once an\n inventor has decided to lift the veil of secrecy from his [or her] work, he [or she]\n must choose between the protection of a federal patent, or the dedication of his [or\n her] idea to the public at large.” Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft\n Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 148, 9 USPQ2d 1847, 1851 (1989).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"“Any invention described in a printed publication more than one year prior to the date of a patent application is prior art under Section 102(b), even if the printed publication was authored by the patent applicant.” De Graffenried v.United States, 16 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 n.7 (Cl. Ct. 1990). “Once an inventor has decided to lift the veil of secrecy from his [or her] work, he [or she] must choose between the protection of a federal patent, or the dedication of his [or her] idea to the public at large.” Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 148, 9 USPQ2d 1847, 1851 (1989).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203750","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_5d3wefkt"},{"id":"cs_wt5xee6v","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_wt5xee6v","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"De Graffenried v. United States, 16 USPQ2d 1321 (1990)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"De Graffenried v. United States","canonical_citation":"De Graffenried v. United States, 16 USPQ2d 1321 (Cl. Ct. 1990)","all_citations":["16 USPQ2d 1321"],"decision_year":1990,"court":"Cl. Ct.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_w3hzqaqm","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_w3hzqaqm","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (1989)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 9 USPQ2d 1847 (1989)","all_citations":["489 U.S. 141","9 USPQ2d 1847"],"decision_year":1989,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_54ou6c4n","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_54ou6c4n","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-11.2013","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"II. A PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) REJECTION CREATES A STATUTORY BAR TO PATENTABILITY\n OF THE REJECTED CLAIMS ","rendered_text_plain":"II. A PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) REJECTION CREATES A STATUTORY BAR TO PATENTABILITY OF THE REJECTED CLAIMS","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203739/b.2","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"II. A PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) REJECTION CREATES A STATUTORY BAR TO PATENTABILITY OF THE REJECTED CLAIMS","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_5d3wefkt"},{"id":"pb_zom2pjr4","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_zom2pjr4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-11.2013","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    A rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) cannot\n be overcome by affidavits and declarations under 37 CFR\n 1.131 (Rule 131 Declarations), foreign priority dates, or\n evidence that applicant himself invented the subject matter. Outside the 1-year grace\n period, applicant is barred from obtaining a patent containing any anticipated or\n obvious claims. In re Foster, 343 F.2d 980, 984, 145 USPQ 166, 170\n (CCPA 1965).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"A rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) cannot be overcome by affidavits and declarations under 37 CFR 1.131 (Rule 131 Declarations), foreign priority dates, or evidence that applicant himself invented the subject matter. Outside the 1-year grace period, applicant is barred from obtaining a patent containing any anticipated or obvious claims. In re Foster, 343 F.2d 980, 984, 145 USPQ 166, 170 (CCPA 1965).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203769","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_5d3wefkt"},{"id":"st_5xsternl","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_5xsternl","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_cfr","authority_title_num":"37","authority_section_num":"1.131","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.131"},{"id":"se_frftj7fi","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_frftj7fi","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_02_a","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_02_a","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d2c183_21092_1c6","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2133.02(a)","chapter":"2100","depth":2,"title":"Overcoming a Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) Rejection Based on a Printed Publication or Patent","children_ids":["pb_uawermjl","pb_ecffbd22","ls_ncjbgqwn"],"revision_tag":"R-10.2019","parent_section_id":"se_5d3wefkt"},{"id":"pb_uawermjl","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_uawermjl","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    In all applications, an applicant may overcome a\n pre-AIA 35\n U.S.C. 102 rejection by persuasively arguing that the claims\n are patentably distinguishable from the prior art, or by amending the claims to\n patentably distinguish over the prior art. Additional ways available to overcome a\n rejection based on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 prior art depend on the applicable\n paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102. See MPEP § 2132.01 for\n overcoming a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and\n MPEP §\n 2136.05et seq. for overcoming a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 102(e). \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"In all applications, an applicant may overcome a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection by persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art, or by amending the claims to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Additional ways available to overcome a rejection based on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 prior art depend on the applicable paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102. See MPEP § 2132.01 for overcoming a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and MPEP § 2136.05et seq. for overcoming a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_102b2c18c_14af8_209","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_frftj7fi"},{"id":"st_erhyeayh","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_erhyeayh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","subsection_path":["e"],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102(e)"},{"id":"se_5tfatyoo","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_5tfatyoo","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2132","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2132","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"stub-2132","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2132","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2132","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_qyw22cak","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_qyw22cak","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2136","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2136","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"stub-2136","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2136","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2136","children_ids":[]},{"id":"pb_ecffbd22","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ecffbd22","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    A rejection based on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) can be\n overcome by:\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"A rejection based on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) can be overcome by:","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59006","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_frftj7fi"},{"id":"ls_ncjbgqwn","node_type":"list","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/ls_ncjbgqwn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59013","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_style":"alpha_upper","nesting_depth":1,"host_section_id":"se_frftj7fi","parent_list_item_id":null,"item_ids":["li_bsjyzwlz","li_rzoofeip","li_wi7rhm2x","li_56kpqjuy"]},{"id":"li_bsjyzwlz","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_bsjyzwlz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • (A) Persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably\n distinguishable from the prior art;\n
    • ","rendered_text_plain":"(A) Persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art;","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59013","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(A)","enumerator_ordinal":0,"parent_list_id":"ls_ncjbgqwn","child_ids":null},{"id":"li_rzoofeip","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_rzoofeip","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • (B) Amending the claims to patentably distinguish over the prior\n art;\n
    • ","rendered_text_plain":"(B) Amending the claims to patentably distinguish over the prior art;","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59017","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(B)","enumerator_ordinal":1,"parent_list_id":"ls_ncjbgqwn","child_ids":null},{"id":"st_vfp4s2k5","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_vfp4s2k5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"120","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 120"},{"id":"st_ck26ngci","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_ck26ngci","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_cfr","authority_title_num":"37","authority_section_num":"1.78","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.78"},{"id":"se_2sllbzbt","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_2sllbzbt","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_211","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_211","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"stub-211","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"211","chapter":"200","depth":0,"title":"Section 211","children_ids":[]},{"id":"ls_aukwq4db","node_type":"list","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/ls_aukwq4db","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf0_1e7ee_176","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_style":"arabic","nesting_depth":2,"host_section_id":"se_frftj7fi","parent_list_item_id":"li_wi7rhm2x","item_ids":["li_goh5clxb","li_eu5emioh"]},{"id":"ls_y5lpmubi","node_type":"list","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/ls_y5lpmubi","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf0_1e815_34e","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_style":"alpha_lower","nesting_depth":3,"host_section_id":"se_frftj7fi","parent_list_item_id":"li_goh5clxb","item_ids":["li_c3yjtoht","li_bl2jcojn"]},{"id":"st_oz3zng25","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_oz3zng25","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_cfr","authority_title_num":"37","authority_section_num":"1.76","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.76"},{"id":"li_c3yjtoht","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_c3yjtoht","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • (a) for applications filed on or after\n September 16, 2012, by filing a corrected application data sheet\n under 37 CFR 1.76\n which contains a specific reference to a prior application in\n accordance with 37 CFR 1.78, or\n \n
    • ","rendered_text_plain":"(a) for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, by filing a corrected application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78, or","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf0_1e815_34e","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(a)","enumerator_ordinal":0,"parent_list_id":"ls_y5lpmubi","child_ids":null},{"id":"li_bl2jcojn","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_bl2jcojn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • (b) for applications filed prior to\n September 16, 2012, by amending the specification of the\n application to contain a specific reference to a prior application\n or by filing a corrected application data sheet under\n 37 CFR 1.76\n which contains a specific reference to a prior application in\n accordance with 37 CFR\n 1.78,\n
    • ","rendered_text_plain":"(b) for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, by amending the specification of the application to contain a specific reference to a prior application or by filing a corrected application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78,","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf0_1e877_387","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(b)","enumerator_ordinal":1,"parent_list_id":"ls_y5lpmubi","child_ids":null},{"id":"li_goh5clxb","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_goh5clxb","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"(1) \n ","rendered_text_plain":"(1)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf0_1e7ee_176","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(1)","enumerator_ordinal":0,"parent_list_id":"ls_aukwq4db","child_ids":["ls_y5lpmubi"]},{"id":"st_ii42pq7g","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_ii42pq7g","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"112","subsection_path":["a"],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 112(a)"},{"id":"li_eu5emioh","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_eu5emioh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • (2) by establishing that the prior application\n satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of\n 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (for applications filed on or\n after September 16, 2012), or 35 U.S.C. 112, first\n paragraph (for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012). See\n MPEP § 211 et\n seq.;\n
    • ","rendered_text_plain":"(2) by establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012), or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph (for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012). See MPEP § 211 et seq.;","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf0_1e8d5_16b","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(2)","enumerator_ordinal":1,"parent_list_id":"ls_aukwq4db","child_ids":null},{"id":"li_wi7rhm2x","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_wi7rhm2x","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"(C) Submitting and perfecting a benefit claim under\n 35\n U.S.C. 120, within the time period set in\n 37 CFR\n 1.78 (or by filing a grantable petition to accept an\n unintentionally delayed claim under 37 CFR 1.78 as explained in\n MPEP § 211.04):\n ","rendered_text_plain":"(C) Submitting and perfecting a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120, within the time period set in 37 CFR 1.78 (or by filing a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim under 37 CFR 1.78 as explained in MPEP § 211.04):","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59021","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(C)","enumerator_ordinal":2,"parent_list_id":"ls_ncjbgqwn","child_ids":["ls_aukwq4db"]},{"id":"st_lovk7ipw","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_lovk7ipw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"119","subsection_path":["e"],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 119(e)"},{"id":"li_56kpqjuy","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_56kpqjuy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • (D) Submitting and perfecting a benefit claim under\n 35 U.S.C.\n 119(e) by complying with the requirements of\n 37 CFR\n 1.78 or filing a grantable petition to accept an\n unintentionally delayed claim under 37 CFR 1.78 (see item (C)\n above). Because a provisional application could not have been filed more than\n one year prior to the filing of a nonprovisional application that claims\n benefit to the provisional application, once the benefit claim under\n 35 U.S.C.\n 119(e) is perfected, the rejection must be reconsidered\n to determine whether the prior art still qualifies as prior art under\n pre-AIA 35\n U.S.C. 102(b) or whether the prior art qualifies as prior\n art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a). Note, however, effective\n December 18, 2013, title II of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act\n (PLTIA) provides for restoration of the right to claim benefit of a provisional\n application filed after the expiration of the twelve-month period in\n 35 U.S.C.\n 119(e). See MPEP §\n 211.01(a), subsection II. If the prior art qualifies\n as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a),\n see MPEP §\n 2132.01 as to how to overcome the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 102(a) rejection.\n
    • ","rendered_text_plain":"(D) Submitting and perfecting a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) by complying with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.78 or filing a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim under 37 CFR 1.78 (see item (C) above). Because a provisional application could not have been filed more than one year prior to the filing of a nonprovisional application that claims benefit to the provisional application, once the benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is perfected, the rejection must be reconsidered to determine whether the prior art still qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) or whether the prior art qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a). Note, however, effective December 18, 2013, title II of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA) provides for restoration of the right to claim benefit of a provisional application filed after the expiration of the twelve-month period in 35 U.S.C. 119(e). See MPEP § 211.01(a), subsection II. If the prior art qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), see MPEP § 2132.01 as to how to overcome the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejection.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59037","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(D)","enumerator_ordinal":3,"parent_list_id":"ls_ncjbgqwn","child_ids":null},{"id":"se_mogr5s4n","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_mogr5s4n","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203781","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2133.03","chapter":"2100","depth":1,"title":"Rejections Based on “Public Use” or “On Sale”","children_ids":["pb_gbiwd2gc","pb_ec2l4vgl","pb_tqxotzma","pb_gkfvixay","pb_lr6szopr","pb_ecgsfk2o","ls_qr5pzmjy","se_hdinpl7s","se_xrf436ep","se_mafrnpsk","se_wz3kymoc","se_22cqpxh6"],"revision_tag":"R-01.2024","parent_section_id":"se_rgreyub5"},{"id":"pb_gbiwd2gc","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_gbiwd2gc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    [Editor Note: This MPEP section is applicable regardless of whether an\n application is examined under the AIA or under pre-AIA law. For applications subject\n to the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA, the relevant time is\n “before the effective filing date of the claimed invention\". For applications subject\n to pre-AIA 35\n U.S.C. 102, the relevant time is “at the time of the\n invention”. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for a\n detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 102. Many of the court decisions discussed in this section\n involved applications or patents subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102. These\n court decisions may be applicable to applications and patents subject to\n AIA 35\n U.S.C. 102 but the relevant time is before the effective filing\n date of the claimed invention and not at the time of the invention.]

    ","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section is applicable regardless of whether an application is examined under the AIA or under pre-AIA law. For applications subject to the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA, the relevant time is “before the effective filing date of the claimed invention\". For applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, the relevant time is “at the time of the invention”. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102. Many of the court decisions discussed in this section involved applications or patents subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102. These court decisions may be applicable to applications and patents subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 but the relevant time is before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and not at the time of the invention.]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c2a_1d3","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_mogr5s4n","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"pb_ec2l4vgl","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ec2l4vgl","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    An applicant may make an admission, or submit evidence of\n sale of the invention or knowledge of the invention by others, or the examiner may have\n personal knowledge that the invention was sold by applicant or known by others. If the\n activity is by an entity other than the inventors, one or more joint inventors, or the\n assignee, such as sale by another, manufacture by another or disclosure of the invention\n by the inventor, one or more joint inventors, or the assignee to another then both\n pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 102(a) and (b) may be applicable. If the\n evidence only points to knowledge within the year prior to the effective filing date\n then pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 102(a) applies. However, no rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 102(a) should be made if there is evidence that inventor made the\n invention and only disclosed it to others within the year prior to the effective filing\n date. Pre-AIA 35\n U.S.C. 102(b) is applicable if the activity occurred more than 1\n year prior to the effective filing date of a claimed invention in the application.\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"An applicant may make an admission, or submit evidence of sale of the invention or knowledge of the invention by others, or the examiner may have personal knowledge that the invention was sold by applicant or known by others. If the activity is by an entity other than the inventors, one or more joint inventors, or the assignee, such as sale by another, manufacture by another or disclosure of the invention by the inventor, one or more joint inventors, or the assignee to another then both pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b) may be applicable. If the evidence only points to knowledge within the year prior to the effective filing date then pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) applies. However, no rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) should be made if there is evidence that inventor made the invention and only disclosed it to others within the year prior to the effective filing date. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is applicable if the activity occurred more than 1 year prior to the effective filing date of a claimed invention in the application.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d1ff6b_299c5_c","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_mogr5s4n"},{"id":"pb_tqxotzma","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_tqxotzma","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 102(b) “contains several distinct bars to patentability, each of\n which relates to activity or disclosure more than one year prior to the date of the\n application. Two of these - the ‘public use’ and the ‘on sale’ objections - are\n sometimes considered together although it is quite clear that either may apply when the\n other does not.” Dart Indus. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,\n 489 F.2d 1359, 1365, 179 USPQ 392, 396 (7th Cir. 1973). There may be a public use of an\n invention absent any sales activity. Likewise, there may be a nonpublic, e.g., “secret,”\n sale or offer to sell an invention which nevertheless constitutes a statutory bar.\n Hobbs v.United States, 451 F.2d 849, 859-60, 171 USPQ 713, 720 (5th Cir.\n 1971). It is noted that AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) uses the\n same “on sale” term as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and is treated as having the same\n meaning. Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,\n 139 S.Ct. 628, 129 USPQ2d 1189 (2019). See MPEP §\n 2152.02(d).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) “contains several distinct bars to patentability, each of which relates to activity or disclosure more than one year prior to the date of the application. Two of these - the ‘public use’ and the ‘on sale’ objections - are sometimes considered together although it is quite clear that either may apply when the other does not.” Dart Indus. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 489 F.2d 1359, 1365, 179 USPQ 392, 396 (7th Cir. 1973). There may be a public use of an invention absent any sales activity. Likewise, there may be a nonpublic, e.g., “secret,” sale or offer to sell an invention which nevertheless constitutes a statutory bar. Hobbs v.United States, 451 F.2d 849, 859-60, 171 USPQ 713, 720 (5th Cir. 1971). It is noted that AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) uses the same “on sale” term as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and is treated as having the same meaning. Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 139 S.Ct. 628, 129 USPQ2d 1189 (2019). See MPEP § 2152.02(d).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203789","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_mogr5s4n"},{"id":"cs_5qf6lvv7","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_5qf6lvv7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Dart Indus. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 489 F.2d 1359 (1973)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Dart Indus. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.","canonical_citation":"Dart Indus. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 489 F.2d 1359, 179 USPQ 392 (7th Cir. 1973)","all_citations":["489 F.2d 1359","179 USPQ 392"],"decision_year":1973,"court":"7th Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_svlpy76k","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_svlpy76k","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Hobbs v. United States, 451 F.2d 849 (1971)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Hobbs v. United States","canonical_citation":"Hobbs v. United States, 451 F.2d 849, 171 USPQ 713 (5th Cir. 1971)","all_citations":["451 F.2d 849","171 USPQ 713"],"decision_year":1971,"court":"5th Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_lsdn4prw","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_lsdn4prw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 628 (2019)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 628, 129 USPQ2d 1189 (2019)","all_citations":["139 S. Ct. 628","129 USPQ2d 1189"],"decision_year":2019,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"st_k7imokil","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_k7imokil","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","subsection_path":["a","1"],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)"},{"id":"pb_gkfvixay","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_gkfvixay","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    In similar fashion, not all “public use” and “on sale” activities will\n necessarily occasion the identical result. Although both activities affect how an\n inventor may use an invention prior to the filing of a patent application,\n “non-commercial” pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) activity may not be viewed the same as\n similar “commercial” activity. See MPEP § 2133.03(a) and\n § 2133.03(e)(1). Likewise, “public use” activity by\n an applicant may not be considered in the same light as similar “public use” activity by\n one other than  an applicant. See MPEP § 2133.03(a) and\n § 2133.03(e)(7). Additionally, the concept of “experimental\n use” may have different significance in “commercial” and “non-commercial” environments.\n See MPEP\n § 2133.03(c) and § 2133.03(e) - § 2133.03(e)(6). \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"In similar fashion, not all “public use” and “on sale” activities will necessarily occasion the identical result. Although both activities affect how an inventor may use an invention prior to the filing of a patent application, “non-commercial” pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) activity may not be viewed the same as similar “commercial” activity. See MPEP § 2133.03(a) and § 2133.03(e)(1). Likewise, “public use” activity by an applicant may not be considered in the same light as similar “public use” activity by one other than an applicant. See MPEP § 2133.03(a) and § 2133.03(e)(7). Additionally, the concept of “experimental use” may have different significance in “commercial” and “non-commercial” environments. See MPEP § 2133.03(c) and § 2133.03(e) - § 2133.03(e)(6).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203803","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_mogr5s4n"},{"id":"pb_lr6szopr","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_lr6szopr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    It should be noted that pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) may create\n a bar to patentability either alone, if the device in public use or placed on sale\n anticipates a later claimed invention, or in conjunction with 35 U.S.C. 103, if\n the claimed invention would have been obvious from the device in conjunction with the\n prior art. LaBounty Mfg.v.United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 1071, 22 USPQ2d\n 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1992).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"It should be noted that pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) may create a bar to patentability either alone, if the device in public use or placed on sale anticipates a later claimed invention, or in conjunction with 35 U.S.C. 103, if the claimed invention would have been obvious from the device in conjunction with the prior art. LaBounty Mfg.v.United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 1071, 22 USPQ2d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1992).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203840","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_mogr5s4n"},{"id":"st_ompe7akv","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_ompe7akv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"103","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 103"},{"id":"pb_ecgsfk2o","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ecgsfk2o","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":" POLICY CONSIDERATIONS","rendered_text_plain":"POLICY CONSIDERATIONS","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203781/b.0","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"POLICY CONSIDERATIONS","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_mogr5s4n"},{"id":"ls_qr5pzmjy","node_type":"list","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/ls_qr5pzmjy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203863","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_style":"alpha_upper","nesting_depth":1,"host_section_id":"se_mogr5s4n","parent_list_item_id":null,"item_ids":["li_4mgelrcl","li_jwmsa3ly","li_jucrwlu7"]},{"id":"cs_ekxnyskf","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_ekxnyskf","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"RCA Corp. v. Data Gen. Corp., 887 F.2d 1056 (1989)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"RCA Corp. v. Data Gen. Corp.","canonical_citation":"RCA Corp. v. Data Gen. Corp., 887 F.2d 1056, 12 USPQ2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","all_citations":["887 F.2d 1056","12 USPQ2d 1449"],"decision_year":1989,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"li_4mgelrcl","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_4mgelrcl","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • (A) “One policy underlying the [on-sale] bar is to obtain\n widespread disclosure of new inventions to the public via patents as soon as\n possible.” RCA Corp. v. Data Gen. Corp.,\n 887 F.2d 1056, 1062, 12 USPQ2d 1449, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1989). \n
    • ","rendered_text_plain":"(A) “One policy underlying the [on-sale] bar is to obtain widespread disclosure of new inventions to the public via patents as soon as possible.” RCA Corp. v. Data Gen. Corp., 887 F.2d 1056, 1062, 12 USPQ2d 1449, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1989).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203863","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(A)","enumerator_ordinal":0,"parent_list_id":"ls_qr5pzmjy","child_ids":null},{"id":"li_jwmsa3ly","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_jwmsa3ly","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • (B) Another policy underlying the public use and on-sale bars is\n to prevent the inventor from commercially exploiting the exclusivity of the\n invention substantially beyond the statutorily authorized period. RCA\n Corp.v.Data Gen. Corp., 887 F.2d 1056, 1062, 12 USPQ2d 1449, 1454\n (Fed. Cir. 1989). See MPEP § 2133.03(e)(1). \n
    • ","rendered_text_plain":"(B) Another policy underlying the public use and on-sale bars is to prevent the inventor from commercially exploiting the exclusivity of the invention substantially beyond the statutorily authorized period. RCA Corp.v.Data Gen. Corp., 887 F.2d 1056, 1062, 12 USPQ2d 1449, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See MPEP § 2133.03(e)(1).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203873","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(B)","enumerator_ordinal":1,"parent_list_id":"ls_qr5pzmjy","child_ids":null},{"id":"cs_pa4oehnn","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_pa4oehnn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Manville SalesCorp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544 (1990)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Manville SalesCorp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc.","canonical_citation":"Manville SalesCorp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 16 USPQ2d 1587 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","all_citations":["917 F.2d 544","16 USPQ2d 1587"],"decision_year":1990,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"li_jucrwlu7","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_jucrwlu7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • (C) Another underlying policy for the public use and on-sale bars\n is to discourage “the removal of inventions from the public domain which the\n public justifiably comes to believe are freely available.” Manville\n SalesCorp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 549, 16 USPQ2d\n 1587, 1591 (Fed. Cir. 1990).\n
    • ","rendered_text_plain":"(C) Another underlying policy for the public use and on-sale bars is to discourage “the removal of inventions from the public domain which the public justifiably comes to believe are freely available.” Manville SalesCorp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 549, 16 USPQ2d 1587, 1591 (Fed. Cir. 1990).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203889","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(C)","enumerator_ordinal":2,"parent_list_id":"ls_qr5pzmjy","child_ids":null},{"id":"se_hdinpl7s","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_hdinpl7s","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_a","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_a","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203899","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2133.03(a)","chapter":"2100","depth":2,"title":"“Public Use”","children_ids":["pb_3h5tvzho","pb_kp4wjken","pb_fthmuljk","nq_x4um67k7","pb_illpcxxk","pb_qjasw53d","pb_x3cauc25","pb_wcbgg3yp","pb_ru3rnt4q","pb_bcwjg36b","pb_p2tryiux","pb_zqneylrk","pb_3mgj7xo7","pb_6o5j4252","pb_xdauawfa","pb_2k3avda6","pb_ttvsjmpf","pb_f3qeap5b","pb_gs2v5x35","pb_so4mgilf","ls_mpibawdd","pb_rmmhlq2k","pb_tjp3vbhk","pb_f5kkjlri","ls_qmp2rsnj","pb_3axvfel3","pb_po3n6cbl","pb_sr3jysti"],"revision_tag":"R-07.2022","parent_section_id":"se_mogr5s4n"},{"id":"pb_3h5tvzho","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_3h5tvzho","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    [Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to\n applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF)\n provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) . See\n MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application\n is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP §\n 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to\n those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for\n a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of\n AIA\n 35 U.S.C. 102.]

    ","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) . See MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP § 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c41_1bd","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"pb_kp4wjken","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_kp4wjken","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"I. TEST FOR “PUBLIC USE”","rendered_text_plain":"I. TEST FOR “PUBLIC USE”","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203899/b.0","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"I. TEST FOR “PUBLIC USE”","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"pb_fthmuljk","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_fthmuljk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    The public use bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)\n arises where the invention is in public use before the critical date and is ready\n for patenting. Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Manufacturing L.P.,\n 424 F.3d 1374, 76 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 2005). As explained by the court, \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"The public use bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) arises where the invention is in public use before the critical date and is ready for patenting. Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Manufacturing L.P., 424 F.3d 1374, 76 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 2005). As explained by the court,","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203909","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"cs_mvaeyof6","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_mvaeyof6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Manufacturing L.P., 424 F.3d 1374 (2005)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Manufacturing L.P.","canonical_citation":"Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Manufacturing L.P., 424 F.3d 1374, 76 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","all_citations":["424 F.3d 1374","76 USPQ2d 1741"],"decision_year":2005,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"nq_x4um67k7","node_type":"narrative_quote","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/nq_x4um67k7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
    \n

    The proper test for the public use prong of the\n [pre-AIA]\n § 102(b) statutory bar is whether the purported use: (1)\n was accessible to the public; or (2) was commercially exploited. Commercial\n exploitation is a clear indication of public use, but it likely requires more\n than, for example, a secret offer for sale. Thus, the test for the public use\n prong includes the consideration of evidence relevant to experimentation, as\n well as, inter alia, the nature of the activity that\n occurred in public; public access to the use; confidentiality obligations\n imposed on members of the public who observed the use; and commercial\n exploitation…. That evidence is relevant to discern whether the use was a\n public use that could raise a bar to patentability, but it is distinct from\n evidence relevant to the ready for patenting component of\n Pfaff ’s two-part test, another necessary requirement of\n a public use bar.\n

    \n
    ","rendered_text_plain":"The proper test for the public use prong of the [pre-AIA] § 102(b) statutory bar is whether the purported use: (1) was accessible to the public; or (2) was commercially exploited. Commercial exploitation is a clear indication of public use, but it likely requires more than, for example, a secret offer for sale. Thus, the test for the public use prong includes the consideration of evidence relevant to experimentation, as well as, inter alia, the nature of the activity that occurred in public; public access to the use; confidentiality obligations imposed on members of the public who observed the use; and commercial exploitation…. That evidence is relevant to discern whether the use was a public use that could raise a bar to patentability, but it is distinct from evidence relevant to the ready for patenting component of Pfaff ’s two-part test, another necessary requirement of a public use bar.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203918","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"source_anchor":"d0e203918","host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"pb_illpcxxk","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_illpcxxk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Id. at 1380, 76 USPQ2d at 1744 (citations omitted). See\n MPEP §\n 2133.03(c) for a discussion of the “ready for patenting”\n prong of the public use and on sale statutory bars.\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Id. at 1380, 76 USPQ2d at 1744 (citations omitted). See MPEP § 2133.03(c) for a discussion of the “ready for patenting” prong of the public use and on sale statutory bars.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203930","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"pb_qjasw53d","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_qjasw53d","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    “[T]o constitute the public use of an invention it is not\n necessary that more than one of the patent articles should be publicly used. The\n use of a great number may tend to strengthen the proof, but one well defined case\n of such use is just as effectual to annul the patent as many.” Likewise, it is not\n necessary that more than one person use the invention. Egbert\n v.Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333, 336 (1881).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"“[T]o constitute the public use of an invention it is not necessary that more than one of the patent articles should be publicly used. The use of a great number may tend to strengthen the proof, but one well defined case of such use is just as effectual to annul the patent as many.” Likewise, it is not necessary that more than one person use the invention. Egbert v.Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333, 336 (1881).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203939","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"cs_4luy5auw","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_4luy5auw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333 (1881)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Egbert v. Lippmann","canonical_citation":"Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333 (1881)","all_citations":["104 U.S. 333"],"decision_year":1881,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_x3cauc25","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_x3cauc25","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"II. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE IS NOT NECESSARILY PUBLIC USE UNDER PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 102(b)","rendered_text_plain":"II. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE IS NOT NECESSARILY PUBLIC USE UNDER PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203899/b.2","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"II. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE IS NOT NECESSARILY PUBLIC USE UNDER PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"pb_wcbgg3yp","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_wcbgg3yp","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Mere knowledge of the invention by the public does not warrant\n rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 102(b) bars public use or sale, not public knowledge.\n TPLabs., Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc., 724 F.2d 965,\n 970, 220 USPQ 577, 581 (Fed. Cir. 1984).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Mere knowledge of the invention by the public does not warrant rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) bars public use or sale, not public knowledge. TPLabs., Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc., 724 F.2d 965, 970, 220 USPQ 577, 581 (Fed. Cir. 1984).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203952","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"cs_yunuvmmy","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_yunuvmmy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"TPLabs., Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc., 724 F.2d 965 (1984)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"TPLabs., Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc.","canonical_citation":"TPLabs., Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc., 724 F.2d 965, 220 USPQ 577 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","all_citations":["724 F.2d 965","220 USPQ 577"],"decision_year":1984,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_ru3rnt4q","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ru3rnt4q","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Note, however, that public knowledge may provide grounds for\n rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a). See MPEP § 2132. \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Note, however, that public knowledge may provide grounds for rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a). See MPEP § 2132.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203967","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"pb_bcwjg36b","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_bcwjg36b","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"A. Commercial Versus Noncommercial Use and the Impact of\n Secrecy","rendered_text_plain":"A. Commercial Versus Noncommercial Use and the Impact of Secrecy","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203899/b.4","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"A. Commercial Versus Noncommercial Use and the Impact of Secrecy","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"pb_p2tryiux","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_p2tryiux","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    There are limited circumstances in which a secret or\n confidential use of an invention may give rise to the public use bar.\n “[S]ecrecy of use alone is not sufficient to show that existing knowledge has\n not been withdrawn from public use; commercial exploitation is also forbidden.”\n Invitrogen, 424 F.3d at 1382, 76 USPQ2d at 1745-46 (The\n fact that patentee secretly used the claimed invention internally before the\n critical date to develop future products that were never sold was by itself\n insufficient to create a public use bar to patentability.).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"There are limited circumstances in which a secret or confidential use of an invention may give rise to the public use bar. “[S]ecrecy of use alone is not sufficient to show that existing knowledge has not been withdrawn from public use; commercial exploitation is also forbidden.” Invitrogen, 424 F.3d at 1382, 76 USPQ2d at 1745-46 (The fact that patentee secretly used the claimed invention internally before the critical date to develop future products that were never sold was by itself insufficient to create a public use bar to patentability.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203980","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"pb_zqneylrk","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_zqneylrk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"1. “Public Use” and “Non-secret Use” Are Not Necessarily\n Synonymous","rendered_text_plain":"1. “Public Use” and “Non-secret Use” Are Not Necessarily Synonymous","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203899/b.6","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"1. “Public Use” and “Non-secret Use” Are Not Necessarily Synonymous","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"pb_3mgj7xo7","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_3mgj7xo7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    “Public” is not necessarily synonymous with “non- secret.”\n The fact “that non-secret uses of the device were made [by the inventor or\n someone connected with the inventor] prior to the critical date is not\n itself dispositive of the issue of whether activity barring a patent under\n pre-AIA\n 35 U.S.C. 102(b) occurred. The fact that the device\n was not hidden from view may make the use not secret, but nonsecret use is\n not ipso facto ‘public use’ activity. Nor, it must be\n added, is all secret use ipso facto not ‘public use’\n within the meaning of the statute,” if the inventor is making commercial use\n of the invention under circumstances which preserve its secrecy. TP\n Labs., Inc.v.Professional Positioners, Inc., 724 F.2d 965, 972, 220\n USPQ 577, 583 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"“Public” is not necessarily synonymous with “non- secret.” The fact “that non-secret uses of the device were made [by the inventor or someone connected with the inventor] prior to the critical date is not itself dispositive of the issue of whether activity barring a patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) occurred. The fact that the device was not hidden from view may make the use not secret, but nonsecret use is not ipso facto ‘public use’ activity. Nor, it must be added, is all secret use ipso facto not ‘public use’ within the meaning of the statute,” if the inventor is making commercial use of the invention under circumstances which preserve its secrecy. TP Labs., Inc.v.Professional Positioners, Inc., 724 F.2d 965, 972, 220 USPQ 577, 583 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citations omitted).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203992","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"pb_6o5j4252","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_6o5j4252","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"2. Even If the Invention Is Hidden, Inventor Who Puts Machine or Article\n Embodying the Invention in Public View Is Barred from Obtaining a Patent\n as the Invention Is in Public Use ","rendered_text_plain":"2. Even If the Invention Is Hidden, Inventor Who Puts Machine or Article Embodying the Invention in Public View Is Barred from Obtaining a Patent as the Invention Is in Public Use","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203899/b.8","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"2. Even If the Invention Is Hidden, Inventor Who Puts Machine or Article Embodying the Invention in Public View Is Barred from Obtaining a Patent as the Invention Is in Public Use","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"pb_xdauawfa","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_xdauawfa","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    When the inventor or someone connected to the inventor puts\n the invention on display or sells it, there is a “public use” within the\n meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) even though by its very\n nature an invention is completely hidden from view as part of a larger\n machine or article, if the invention is otherwise used in its natural and\n intended way and the larger machine or article is accessible to the public.\n In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 783, 113 USPQ 289, 292\n (CCPA 1957); Hallv. Macneale, 107 U.S. 90, 96-97 (1882); Ex\n parteKuklo, 25 USPQ2d 1387, 1390 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter.\n 1992) (Display of equipment including the structural features of the claimed\n invention to visitors of laboratory is public use even though public did not\n see inner workings of device. The person to whom the invention is publicly\n disclosed need not understand the significance and technical complexities of\n the invention.).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"When the inventor or someone connected to the inventor puts the invention on display or sells it, there is a “public use” within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) even though by its very nature an invention is completely hidden from view as part of a larger machine or article, if the invention is otherwise used in its natural and intended way and the larger machine or article is accessible to the public. In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 783, 113 USPQ 289, 292 (CCPA 1957); Hallv. Macneale, 107 U.S. 90, 96-97 (1882); Ex parteKuklo, 25 USPQ2d 1387, 1390 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Display of equipment including the structural features of the claimed invention to visitors of laboratory is public use even though public did not see inner workings of device. The person to whom the invention is publicly disclosed need not understand the significance and technical complexities of the invention.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204017","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"cs_63o7uzyw","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_63o7uzyw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779 (1957)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"In re Blaisdell","canonical_citation":"In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 113 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1957)","all_citations":["242 F.2d 779","113 USPQ 289"],"decision_year":1957,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_2k3avda6","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_2k3avda6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"3. There Is No Public Use If Inventor Restricted Use to Locations Where\n There Was a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy and the Use Was for His or\n Her Own Enjoyment ","rendered_text_plain":"3. There Is No Public Use If Inventor Restricted Use to Locations Where There Was a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy and the Use Was for His or Her Own Enjoyment","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203899/b.10","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"3. There Is No Public Use If Inventor Restricted Use to Locations Where There Was a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy and the Use Was for His or Her Own Enjoyment","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"pb_ttvsjmpf","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ttvsjmpf","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    An inventor’s private use of the invention, for his or her\n own enjoyment is not a public use. Moleculon Research\n Corp.v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1265, 229 USPQ 805, 809\n (Fed. Cir. 1986) (Inventor showed inventive puzzle to close friends while in\n his dorm room and later the president of the company at which he was working\n saw the puzzle on the inventor’s desk and they discussed it. Court held that\n the inventor retained control and thus these actions did not result in a\n “public use.”).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"An inventor’s private use of the invention, for his or her own enjoyment is not a public use. Moleculon Research Corp.v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1265, 229 USPQ 805, 809 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (Inventor showed inventive puzzle to close friends while in his dorm room and later the president of the company at which he was working saw the puzzle on the inventor’s desk and they discussed it. Court held that the inventor retained control and thus these actions did not result in a “public use.”).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204042","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"pb_f3qeap5b","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_f3qeap5b","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"4. The Presence or Absence of a Confidentiality Agreement is Not\n Dispositive of the Public Use Issue","rendered_text_plain":"4. The Presence or Absence of a Confidentiality Agreement is Not Dispositive of the Public Use Issue","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203899/b.12","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"4. The Presence or Absence of a Confidentiality Agreement is Not Dispositive of the Public Use Issue","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"pb_gs2v5x35","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_gs2v5x35","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    “The presence or absence of a confidentiality agreement is\n not dispositive of the public use issue, but ‘is one factor to be considered\n in assessing all the evidence.’” Bernhardt, L.L.C. v. Collezione\n Europa USA, Inc., 386 F.3d 1371, 1380-81, 72 USPQ2d 1901, 1909\n (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS\n Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1266, 229 USPQ 805, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).\n The court stressed that it is necessary to analyze the evidence of public\n use in the context of policies that underlie the public use and on sale bar\n that include “‘discouraging removal of inventions from the public domain\n that the public justifiably believes are freely available, prohibiting an\n extension of the period for exploiting an invention, and favoring prompt and\n widespread disclosure of inventions.’” Bernhardt, 386\n F.3d at 1381, 72 USPQ2d at 1909. See also Invitrogen, 424\n F.3d at 1379, 76 USPQ2d at 1744; MPEP § 2133.03, subsection\n I. Evidence that the court emphasized included the “‘nature of the activity\n that occurred in public; the public access to and knowledge of the public\n use; [and] whether there were any confidentiality obligations imposed on\n persons who observed the use.’” Bernhardt, 386 F.3d at\n 1381, 72 USPQ2d at 1909. For example, the court in\n Bernhardt noted that an exhibition display at issue in\n the case “was not open to the public, that the identification of attendees\n was checked against a list of authorized names by building security and\n later at a reception desk near the showroom, that attendees were escorted\n through the showroom, and that the attendees were not permitted to make\n written notes or take photographs inside the showroom.”\n Id. The court remanded the issue of whether the\n exhibition display was a public use for further proceedings since the\n district court “focused on the absence of any confidentiality agreements and\n did not discuss or analyze how the totality of the circumstances\n surrounding” the exhibition “comports with the policies underlying the\n public use bar.” Id.

    ","rendered_text_plain":"“The presence or absence of a confidentiality agreement is not dispositive of the public use issue, but ‘is one factor to be considered in assessing all the evidence.’” Bernhardt, L.L.C. v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc., 386 F.3d 1371, 1380-81, 72 USPQ2d 1901, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1266, 229 USPQ 805, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). The court stressed that it is necessary to analyze the evidence of public use in the context of policies that underlie the public use and on sale bar that include “‘discouraging removal of inventions from the public domain that the public justifiably believes are freely available, prohibiting an extension of the period for exploiting an invention, and favoring prompt and widespread disclosure of inventions.’” Bernhardt, 386 F.3d at 1381, 72 USPQ2d at 1909. See also Invitrogen, 424 F.3d at 1379, 76 USPQ2d at 1744; MPEP § 2133.03, subsection I. Evidence that the court emphasized included the “‘nature of the activity that occurred in public; the public access to and knowledge of the public use; [and] whether there were any confidentiality obligations imposed on persons who observed the use.’” Bernhardt, 386 F.3d at 1381, 72 USPQ2d at 1909. For example, the court in Bernhardt noted that an exhibition display at issue in the case “was not open to the public, that the identification of attendees was checked against a list of authorized names by building security and later at a reception desk near the showroom, that attendees were escorted through the showroom, and that the attendees were not permitted to make written notes or take photographs inside the showroom.” Id. The court remanded the issue of whether the exhibition display was a public use for further proceedings since the district court “focused on the absence of any confidentiality agreements and did not discuss or analyze how the totality of the circumstances surrounding” the exhibition “comports with the policies underlying the public use bar.” Id.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204055","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"cs_63yc3fkj","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_63yc3fkj","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Bernhardt, L.L.C. v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc., 386 F.3d 1371 (2004)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Bernhardt, L.L.C. v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Bernhardt, L.L.C. v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc., 386 F.3d 1371, 72 USPQ2d 1901 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","all_citations":["386 F.3d 1371","72 USPQ2d 1901"],"decision_year":2004,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_b5jzqahd","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_b5jzqahd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS Inc., 793 F.2d 1261 (1986)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS Inc.","canonical_citation":"Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 229 USPQ 805 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","all_citations":["793 F.2d 1261","229 USPQ 805"],"decision_year":1986,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_so4mgilf","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_so4mgilf","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"B. Use by Third Parties Deriving the Invention from\n Applicant","rendered_text_plain":"B. Use by Third Parties Deriving the Invention from Applicant","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203899/b.14","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"B. Use by Third Parties Deriving the Invention from Applicant","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"ls_mpibawdd","node_type":"list","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/ls_mpibawdd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203899/ul.5","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_style":"no_enumerator","nesting_depth":1,"host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s","parent_list_item_id":null,"item_ids":["li_hf2lnkay"]},{"id":"li_hf2lnkay","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_hf2lnkay","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • ","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203899/ul.5/li.0","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"","enumerator_ordinal":0,"parent_list_id":"ls_mpibawdd","child_ids":null},{"id":"pb_rmmhlq2k","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_rmmhlq2k","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"An Invention Is in Public Use If the Inventor Allows Another To Use\n the Invention Without Restriction or Obligation of Secrecy","rendered_text_plain":"An Invention Is in Public Use If the Inventor Allows Another To Use the Invention Without Restriction or Obligation of Secrecy","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203899/b.16","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"An Invention Is in Public Use If the Inventor Allows Another To Use the Invention Without Restriction or Obligation of Secrecy","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"pb_tjp3vbhk","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_tjp3vbhk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    “Public use” of a claimed invention under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 102(b) occurs when the inventor allows another person\n to use the invention without limitation, restriction or obligation of\n secrecy to the inventor.” In re Smith, 714 F.2d 1127,\n 1134, 218 USPQ 976, 983 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The presence or absence of a\n confidentiality agreement is not itself determinative of the public use\n issue, but is one factor to be considered along with the time, place, and\n circumstances of the use which show the amount of control the inventor\n retained over the invention. Moleculon Research Corp.v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1265, 229 USPQ 805, 809\n (Fed. Cir. 1986). See Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492, 1499\n (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Inventor sold inventive soybean seeds to\n growers who contracted and were paid to plant the seeds to increase stock\n for later sale. The commercial nature of the use of the seed coupled with\n the “on-sale” aspects of the contract and apparent lack of confidentiality\n requirements rose to the level of a “public use” bar.); Egbert\n v.Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333, 336 (1881) (Public use found\n where inventor allowed another to use inventive corset insert, though hidden\n from view during use, because he did not impose an obligation of secrecy or\n restrictions on its use.). \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"“Public use” of a claimed invention under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) occurs when the inventor allows another person to use the invention without limitation, restriction or obligation of secrecy to the inventor.” In re Smith, 714 F.2d 1127, 1134, 218 USPQ 976, 983 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The presence or absence of a confidentiality agreement is not itself determinative of the public use issue, but is one factor to be considered along with the time, place, and circumstances of the use which show the amount of control the inventor retained over the invention. Moleculon Research Corp.v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1265, 229 USPQ 805, 809 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492, 1499 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Inventor sold inventive soybean seeds to growers who contracted and were paid to plant the seeds to increase stock for later sale. The commercial nature of the use of the seed coupled with the “on-sale” aspects of the contract and apparent lack of confidentiality requirements rose to the level of a “public use” bar.); Egbert v.Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333, 336 (1881) (Public use found where inventor allowed another to use inventive corset insert, though hidden from view during use, because he did not impose an obligation of secrecy or restrictions on its use.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204103","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"cs_7alnhmbp","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_7alnhmbp","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Smith, 714 F.2d 1127 (1983)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"In re Smith","canonical_citation":"In re Smith, 714 F.2d 1127, 218 USPQ 976 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","all_citations":["714 F.2d 1127","218 USPQ 976"],"decision_year":1983,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_c6gmeurx","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_c6gmeurx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (1992)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Ex parte C","canonical_citation":"Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (BPAI 1992)","all_citations":["27 USPQ2d 1492"],"decision_year":1992,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_f5kkjlri","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_f5kkjlri","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"C. Use by Independent Third Parties","rendered_text_plain":"C. Use by Independent Third Parties","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203899/b.17","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"C. Use by Independent Third Parties","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"ls_qmp2rsnj","node_type":"list","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/ls_qmp2rsnj","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203899/ul.6","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_style":"no_enumerator","nesting_depth":1,"host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s","parent_list_item_id":null,"item_ids":["li_tpe3cshi"]},{"id":"li_tpe3cshi","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_tpe3cshi","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • ","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203899/ul.6/li.0","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"","enumerator_ordinal":0,"parent_list_id":"ls_qmp2rsnj","child_ids":null},{"id":"pb_3axvfel3","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_3axvfel3","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"Use by an Independent Third Party Is Public\n Use If It Sufficiently “Informs” the Public of the Invention or a\n Competitor Could Reasonably Ascertain the Invention","rendered_text_plain":"Use by an Independent Third Party Is Public Use If It Sufficiently “Informs” the Public of the Invention or a Competitor Could Reasonably Ascertain the Invention","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203899/b.19","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"Use by an Independent Third Party Is Public Use If It Sufficiently “Informs” the Public of the Invention or a Competitor Could Reasonably Ascertain the Invention","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"pb_po3n6cbl","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_po3n6cbl","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Any “nonsecret” use of an invention by someone unconnected\n to the inventor, such as someone who has independently made the invention,\n in the ordinary course of a business for trade or profit may be a “public\n use,” Bird Provision Co. v. Owens Country Sausage,Inc., 568 F.2d 369, 374-76, 197 USPQ 134, 138-40 (5th\n Cir. 1978). Additionally, even a “secret” use by another inventor of a\n machine or process to make a product is “public” if the details of the\n machine or process are ascertainable by inspection or analysis of the\n product that is sold or publicly displayed. Gillman v.\n Stern, 114 F.2d 28, 46 USPQ 430 (2d Cir. 1940); Dunlop\n Holdings, Ltd. v. Ram Golf Corp., 524 F.2d 33, 36-7, 188 USPQ\n 481, 483-484 (7th Cir. 1975). If the details of an inventive process are not\n ascertainable from the product sold or displayed and the third party has\n kept the invention as a trade secret then that use is not a public use and\n will not bar a patent issuing to someone unconnected to the user.\n W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d\n 1540, 1550, 220 USPQ 303, 310 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, a device qualifies\n as prior art if it places the claimed features in the\n public's possession before the critical date even if other\n unclaimed aspects of the device were not publicly\n available. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d\n 1505, 1570-71, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1964-65 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Computer\n reservation system was prior art even though “essential algorithms of the\n SABRE software were proprietary and confidential and...those aspects of the\n system that were readily apparent to the public would not have been\n sufficient to enable one skilled in the art to duplicate the [unclaimed\n aspects of the] system.”). The extent that the public becomes “informed” of\n an invention involved in public use activity by one other than an inventor\n depends upon the factual circumstances surrounding the activity and how\n these comport with the policies underlying the on sale and public use bars.\n Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d\n 544, 549, 16 USPQ2d 1587, 1591 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting King\n Instrument Corp.v. Otari Corp., 767 F.2d 833, 860, 226 USPQ 402, 406\n (Fed. Cir. 1985)). By way of example, in an allegedly “secret” use by a\n third party other than an inventor, if a large number of employees of such a\n party, who are not under a promise of secrecy, are permitted unimpeded\n access to an invention, with affirmative steps by the party to educate other\n employees as to the nature of the invention, the public is “informed.”\n Chemithon Corp.v.Proctor & Gamble Co., 287 F. Supp. 291, 308, 159 USPQ\n 139, 154 (D.Md. 1968), aff’d., 427 F.2d 893, 165 USPQ 678\n (4th Cir. 1970).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Any “nonsecret” use of an invention by someone unconnected to the inventor, such as someone who has independently made the invention, in the ordinary course of a business for trade or profit may be a “public use,” Bird Provision Co. v. Owens Country Sausage,Inc., 568 F.2d 369, 374-76, 197 USPQ 134, 138-40 (5th Cir. 1978). Additionally, even a “secret” use by another inventor of a machine or process to make a product is “public” if the details of the machine or process are ascertainable by inspection or analysis of the product that is sold or publicly displayed. Gillman v. Stern, 114 F.2d 28, 46 USPQ 430 (2d Cir. 1940); Dunlop Holdings, Ltd. v. Ram Golf Corp., 524 F.2d 33, 36-7, 188 USPQ 481, 483-484 (7th Cir. 1975). If the details of an inventive process are not ascertainable from the product sold or displayed and the third party has kept the invention as a trade secret then that use is not a public use and will not bar a patent issuing to someone unconnected to the user. W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550, 220 USPQ 303, 310 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, a device qualifies as prior art if it places the claimed features in the public's possession before the critical date even if other unclaimed aspects of the device were not publicly available. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 1570-71, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1964-65 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Computer reservation system was prior art even though “essential algorithms of the SABRE software were proprietary and confidential and...those aspects of the system that were readily apparent to the public would not have been sufficient to enable one skilled in the art to duplicate the [unclaimed aspects of the] system.”). The extent that the public becomes “informed” of an invention involved in public use activity by one other than an inventor depends upon the factual circumstances surrounding the activity and how these comport with the policies underlying the on sale and public use bars. Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 549, 16 USPQ2d 1587, 1591 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting King Instrument Corp.v. Otari Corp., 767 F.2d 833, 860, 226 USPQ 402, 406 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). By way of example, in an allegedly “secret” use by a third party other than an inventor, if a large number of employees of such a party, who are not under a promise of secrecy, are permitted unimpeded access to an invention, with affirmative steps by the party to educate other employees as to the nature of the invention, the public is “informed.” Chemithon Corp.v.Proctor & Gamble Co., 287 F. Supp. 291, 308, 159 USPQ 139, 154 (D.Md. 1968), aff’d., 427 F.2d 893, 165 USPQ 678 (4th Cir. 1970).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204135","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"cs_3xohdwwv","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_3xohdwwv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Bird Provision Co. v. Owens Country Sausage,Inc., 568 F.2d 369 (1978)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Bird Provision Co. v. Owens Country Sausage,Inc.","canonical_citation":"Bird Provision Co. v. Owens Country Sausage,Inc., 568 F.2d 369, 197 USPQ 134 (5th Cir. 1978)","all_citations":["568 F.2d 369","197 USPQ 134"],"decision_year":1978,"court":"5th Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_rt77rlaa","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_rt77rlaa","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Gillman v. Stern, 114 F.2d 28 (1940)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Gillman v. Stern","canonical_citation":"Gillman v. Stern, 114 F.2d 28, 46 USPQ 430 (2d Cir. 1940)","all_citations":["114 F.2d 28","46 USPQ 430"],"decision_year":1940,"court":"2d Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_hp357drp","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_hp357drp","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Dunlop Holdings, Ltd. v. Ram Golf Corp., 524 F.2d 33 (1975)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Dunlop Holdings, Ltd. v. Ram Golf Corp.","canonical_citation":"Dunlop Holdings, Ltd. v. Ram Golf Corp., 524 F.2d 33, 188 USPQ 481 (7th Cir. 1975)","all_citations":["524 F.2d 33","188 USPQ 481"],"decision_year":1975,"court":"7th Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_whhrepg4","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_whhrepg4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540 (1983)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc.","canonical_citation":"W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","all_citations":["721 F.2d 1540","220 USPQ 303"],"decision_year":1983,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_rqcqjre4","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_rqcqjre4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505 (1997)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","all_citations":["107 F.3d 1505","41 USPQ2d 1961"],"decision_year":1997,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_2zmlr3ni","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_2zmlr3ni","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544 (1990)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc.","canonical_citation":"Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 16 USPQ2d 1587 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","all_citations":["917 F.2d 544","16 USPQ2d 1587"],"decision_year":1990,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_sr3jysti","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_sr3jysti","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Even if public use activity by one other than an inventor\n is not sufficiently “informing,” there may be adequate grounds upon which to\n base a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f)\n and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See Dunlop\n Holdings Ltd. v. Ram Golf Corp., 524 F.2d 33, 188 USPQ 481 (7th\n Cir. 1975). See MPEP § 2137 and\n §\n 2138. \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Even if public use activity by one other than an inventor is not sufficiently “informing,” there may be adequate grounds upon which to base a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See Dunlop Holdings Ltd. v. Ram Golf Corp., 524 F.2d 33, 188 USPQ 481 (7th Cir. 1975). See MPEP § 2137 and § 2138.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204183","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_hdinpl7s"},{"id":"cs_5smcdnpx","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_5smcdnpx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Dunlop Holdings Ltd. v. Ram Golf Corp., 524 F.2d 33 (1975)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Dunlop Holdings Ltd. v. Ram Golf Corp.","canonical_citation":"Dunlop Holdings Ltd. v. Ram Golf Corp., 524 F.2d 33, 188 USPQ 481 (7th Cir. 1975)","all_citations":["524 F.2d 33","188 USPQ 481"],"decision_year":1975,"court":"7th Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"st_f5oboo62","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_f5oboo62","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","subsection_path":["f"],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102(f)"},{"id":"st_eiprdrak","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_eiprdrak","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","subsection_path":["g"],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102(g)"},{"id":"se_yeiwx7nt","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_yeiwx7nt","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2137","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2137","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"stub-2137","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2137","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2137","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_iya6ppc3","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_iya6ppc3","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2138","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2138","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"stub-2138","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2138","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2138","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_xrf436ep","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_xrf436ep","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_b","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_b","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2133.03(b)","chapter":"2100","depth":2,"title":"“On Sale”","children_ids":["pb_glymr6su","pb_tq6ptlud","pb_bkq34yn7","pb_q2dxixow","pb_kbxbqvdq","pb_m3gbghqv","pb_52kdphnf","pb_si4x3pt4","pb_fjflwffp","pb_pz6tfxex","pb_fjsil3nr","pb_5mvdjpx5","pb_je525ab5","pb_6ubb77jh","pb_2iqc4odv","pb_wmzb62pi","pb_gj2xmdcr","pb_2gsyk2yp","pb_7rw67qvk","pb_4r5mj4qd","pb_bbk5coke","pb_jmep7mbi","pb_6zno26yo","pb_zf7kshfp","pb_ury534yh","pb_tr5rz5qi","pb_w4e37nzo","pb_xfiyxhb4","pb_6444lhz3","pb_o3bktjvq","pb_5d76rvdq","pb_4tofdhxy","pb_breltp2u","ls_dmcjkmik","pb_xm5gghdx","pb_mgodm5lg","pb_ztqvjfve","pb_xsfv2pas"],"revision_tag":"R-07.2022","parent_section_id":"se_mogr5s4n"},{"id":"pb_glymr6su","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_glymr6su","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    [Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to\n applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF)\n provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note).\n AIA\n 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) uses the same “on sale” term as\n pre-AIA 35\n U.S.C. 102(b) and is treated as having the same meaning.\n Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 139 S.Ct. 628 (2019).\n See MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application\n is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP §\n 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to\n those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for\n a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of\n AIA\n 35 U.S.C. 102.]

    ","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) uses the same “on sale” term as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and is treated as having the same meaning. Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 139 S.Ct. 628 (2019). See MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP § 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c80_3d1","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"pb_tq6ptlud","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_tq6ptlud","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    An impermissible sale has occurred if there was a definite sale, or\n offer to sell, more than 1 year before the effective filing date of the claimed\n invention and the subject matter of the sale, or offer to sell, fully anticipated the\n claimed invention or would have rendered the claimed invention obvious by its\n addition to the prior art. Ferag AG v. Quipp, Inc., 45 F.3d 1562,\n 1565, 33 USPQ2d 1512, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The on-sale bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 102(b) is triggered if the invention is both (1) the subject of\n a commercial offer for sale not primarily for experimental purposes and (2) ready for\n patenting. Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 67, 48 USPQ2d\n 1641, 1646-47 (1998). Traditional contract law principles are applied when\n determining whether a commercial offer for sale has occurred. See Linear\n Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc., 275 F.3d 1040, 1048, 61 USPQ2d 1225, 1229\n (Fed. Cir. 2001), petition for cert. filed, 71 USLW 3093 (July 03,\n 2002) (No. 02-39); Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254\n F.3d 1041,1047, 59 USPQ2d 1121, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“As a general proposition, we\n will look to the Uniform Commercial Code (‘UCC’) to define whether … a communication\n or series of communications rises to the level of a commercial offer for sale.”).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"An impermissible sale has occurred if there was a definite sale, or offer to sell, more than 1 year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the subject matter of the sale, or offer to sell, fully anticipated the claimed invention or would have rendered the claimed invention obvious by its addition to the prior art. Ferag AG v. Quipp, Inc., 45 F.3d 1562, 1565, 33 USPQ2d 1512, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The on-sale bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is triggered if the invention is both (1) the subject of a commercial offer for sale not primarily for experimental purposes and (2) ready for patenting. Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 67, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1646-47 (1998). Traditional contract law principles are applied when determining whether a commercial offer for sale has occurred. See Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc., 275 F.3d 1040, 1048, 61 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2001), petition for cert. filed, 71 USLW 3093 (July 03, 2002) (No. 02-39); Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041,1047, 59 USPQ2d 1121, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“As a general proposition, we will look to the Uniform Commercial Code (‘UCC’) to define whether … a communication or series of communications rises to the level of a commercial offer for sale.”).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204205","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"cs_eru3w72g","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_eru3w72g","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ferag AG v. Quipp, Inc., 45 F.3d 1562 (1995)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Ferag AG v. Quipp, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Ferag AG v. Quipp, Inc., 45 F.3d 1562, 33 USPQ2d 1512 (Fed. Cir. 1995)","all_citations":["45 F.3d 1562","33 USPQ2d 1512"],"decision_year":1995,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_ff7sv3co","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_ff7sv3co","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55 (1998)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc.","canonical_citation":"Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 48 USPQ2d 1641 (1998)","all_citations":["525 U.S. 55","48 USPQ2d 1641"],"decision_year":1998,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_r4jed6iw","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_r4jed6iw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc., 275 F.3d 1040 (2001)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc., 275 F.3d 1040, 61 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2001)","all_citations":["275 F.3d 1040","61 USPQ2d 1225"],"decision_year":2001,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_v2horvwi","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_v2horvwi","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041 (2001)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 59 USPQ2d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2001)","all_citations":["254 F.3d 1041","59 USPQ2d 1121"],"decision_year":2001,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_bkq34yn7","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_bkq34yn7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"I. THE MEANING OF “SALE”","rendered_text_plain":"I. THE MEANING OF “SALE”","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/b.0","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"I. THE MEANING OF “SALE”","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_q2dxixow","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_q2dxixow","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    A sale is a contract between parties wherein the seller agrees\n “to give and to pass rights of property” in return for the buyer’s payment or\n promise “to pay the seller for the things bought or sold.” In re\n Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 676, 226 USPQ 1, 4 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A\n contract for the sale of goods requires a concrete offer and acceptance of that\n offer. See, e.g., Linear Tech., 275 F.3d at 1052-54, 61 USPQ2d\n at 1233-34 (Court held there was no sale within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 102(b) where prospective purchaser submitted an order for\n goods at issue, but received an order acknowledgement reading “will advise-not\n booked.” Prospective purchaser would understand that order was not accepted.).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"A sale is a contract between parties wherein the seller agrees “to give and to pass rights of property” in return for the buyer’s payment or promise “to pay the seller for the things bought or sold.” In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 676, 226 USPQ 1, 4 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A contract for the sale of goods requires a concrete offer and acceptance of that offer. See, e.g., Linear Tech., 275 F.3d at 1052-54, 61 USPQ2d at 1233-34 (Court held there was no sale within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) where prospective purchaser submitted an order for goods at issue, but received an order acknowledgement reading “will advise-not booked.” Prospective purchaser would understand that order was not accepted.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204230","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"cs_quycrldz","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_quycrldz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671 (1985)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"In re Caveney","canonical_citation":"In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 226 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","all_citations":["761 F.2d 671","226 USPQ 1"],"decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_kbxbqvdq","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_kbxbqvdq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    “[T]o be ‘on sale’ under [pre-AIA] §\n 102(b), a product must be the subject of a commercial sale\n or offer for sale,” and to be a commercial sale it must be “one that bears the\n general hallmarks of a sale pursuant to Section 2-106 of the Uniform Commercial\n Code.” Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., 827 F.3d 1363, 1364, 119\n USPQ2d 1329, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc). The court in\n Medicines Co. went on to explain “[s]ection 2-106(1) of the\n Uniform Commercial Code describes a ‘sale’ as ‘the passing of title from the\n seller to the buyer for a price.’ U.C.C. § 2-106(1). The passage of title is a\n helpful indicator of whether a product is ‘on sale,’ as it suggests when the\n inventor gives up its interest and control over the product.”\n Id. at 1375, 119 USPQ2d at 1338. The Medicines\n Co. court held “a contract manufacturer’s sale to the inventor of\n manufacturing services where neither title to the embodiments nor the right to\n market the same passes to the supplier does not constitute an invalidating sale\n under §\n 102(b).” Id. at 1381, 119 USPQ2d at\n 1342.\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"“[T]o be ‘on sale’ under [pre-AIA] § 102(b), a product must be the subject of a commercial sale or offer for sale,” and to be a commercial sale it must be “one that bears the general hallmarks of a sale pursuant to Section 2-106 of the Uniform Commercial Code.” Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., 827 F.3d 1363, 1364, 119 USPQ2d 1329, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc). The court in Medicines Co. went on to explain “[s]ection 2-106(1) of the Uniform Commercial Code describes a ‘sale’ as ‘the passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price.’ U.C.C. § 2-106(1). The passage of title is a helpful indicator of whether a product is ‘on sale,’ as it suggests when the inventor gives up its interest and control over the product.” Id. at 1375, 119 USPQ2d at 1338. The Medicines Co. court held “a contract manufacturer’s sale to the inventor of manufacturing services where neither title to the embodiments nor the right to market the same passes to the supplier does not constitute an invalidating sale under § 102(b).” Id. at 1381, 119 USPQ2d at 1342.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_299b6_20a15_215","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"cs_swjxq5e3","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_swjxq5e3","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., 827 F.3d 1363 (2016)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., 827 F.3d 1363, 119 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2016)","all_citations":["827 F.3d 1363","119 USPQ2d 1329"],"decision_year":2016,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_m3gbghqv","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_m3gbghqv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"A. Conditional Sale May Bar a Patent","rendered_text_plain":"A. Conditional Sale May Bar a Patent","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/b.2","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"A. Conditional Sale May Bar a Patent","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_52kdphnf","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_52kdphnf","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    An invention may be deemed to be “on sale” even though the\n sale was conditional. The fact that the sale is conditioned on buyer\n satisfaction does not, without more, prove that the sale was for an\n experimental purpose. Strong v. General Elec. Co., 434 F.2d\n 1042, 1046, 168 USPQ 8, 12 (5th Cir. 1970).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"An invention may be deemed to be “on sale” even though the sale was conditional. The fact that the sale is conditioned on buyer satisfaction does not, without more, prove that the sale was for an experimental purpose. Strong v. General Elec. Co., 434 F.2d 1042, 1046, 168 USPQ 8, 12 (5th Cir. 1970).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204246","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"cs_t2i4g3f2","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_t2i4g3f2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Strong v. General Elec. Co., 434 F.2d 1042 (1970)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Strong v. General Elec. Co.","canonical_citation":"Strong v. General Elec. Co., 434 F.2d 1042, 168 USPQ 8 (5th Cir. 1970)","all_citations":["434 F.2d 1042","168 USPQ 8"],"decision_year":1970,"court":"5th Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_si4x3pt4","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_si4x3pt4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"B. Nonprofit Sale May Bar a Patent","rendered_text_plain":"B. Nonprofit Sale May Bar a Patent","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/b.4","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"B. Nonprofit Sale May Bar a Patent","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_fjflwffp","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_fjflwffp","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    A “sale” need not be for profit to bar a patent. If the sale\n was for the commercial exploitation of the invention, it is “on sale” within\n the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).\n In re Dybel, 524 F.2d 1393, 1401, 187 USPQ 593, 599 (CCPA\n 1975) (“Although selling the devices for a profit would have demonstrated the\n purpose of commercial exploitation, the fact that appellant realized no profit\n from the sales does not demonstrate the contrary.”).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"A “sale” need not be for profit to bar a patent. If the sale was for the commercial exploitation of the invention, it is “on sale” within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). In re Dybel, 524 F.2d 1393, 1401, 187 USPQ 593, 599 (CCPA 1975) (“Although selling the devices for a profit would have demonstrated the purpose of commercial exploitation, the fact that appellant realized no profit from the sales does not demonstrate the contrary.”).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204256","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"cs_nhpdg4z4","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_nhpdg4z4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Dybel, 524 F.2d 1393 (1975)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"In re Dybel","canonical_citation":"In re Dybel, 524 F.2d 1393, 187 USPQ 593 (CCPA 1975)","all_citations":["524 F.2d 1393","187 USPQ 593"],"decision_year":1975,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_pz6tfxex","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_pz6tfxex","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"C. A Single Sale or Offer To Sell May Bar a Patent","rendered_text_plain":"C. A Single Sale or Offer To Sell May Bar a Patent","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/b.6","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"C. A Single Sale or Offer To Sell May Bar a Patent","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_fjsil3nr","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_fjsil3nr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Even a single sale or offer to sell the invention may bar\n patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).\n ConsolidatedFruit-Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U.S. 92, 94 (1876);\n Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp., 970 F.2d\n 834, 836-37, 23 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1992).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Even a single sale or offer to sell the invention may bar patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). ConsolidatedFruit-Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U.S. 92, 94 (1876); Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp., 970 F.2d 834, 836-37, 23 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1992).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204269","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"cs_m2dfi2mv","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_m2dfi2mv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"ConsolidatedFruit-Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U.S. 92 (1876)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"ConsolidatedFruit-Jar Co. v. Wright","canonical_citation":"ConsolidatedFruit-Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U.S. 92 (1876)","all_citations":["94 U.S. 92"],"decision_year":1876,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_llbsoomk","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_llbsoomk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp., 970 F.2d 834 (1992)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp.","canonical_citation":"Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp., 970 F.2d 834, 23 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","all_citations":["970 F.2d 834","23 USPQ2d 1481"],"decision_year":1992,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_5mvdjpx5","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_5mvdjpx5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"D. A Sale of Rights Is Not a Sale of the Invention and Will Not in\n Itself Bar a Patent","rendered_text_plain":"D. A Sale of Rights Is Not a Sale of the Invention and Will Not in Itself Bar a Patent","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/b.8","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"D. A Sale of Rights Is Not a Sale of the Invention and Will Not in Itself Bar a Patent","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_je525ab5","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_je525ab5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    “[A]n assignment or sale of the rights in the invention and\n potential patent rights is not a sale of ‘the invention’ within the meaning of\n [pre-AIA]\n section 102(b).” Moleculon Research Corp. v.\n CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1267, 229 USPQ 805, 809 (Fed. Cir.\n 1986); see also Elan Corp., PLC v. Andrx Pharms. Inc.,\n 366 F.3d 1336, 1341, 70 USPQ2d 1722, 1728 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re\n Kollar, 286 F.3d 1326, 1330 n.3, 1330-1331, 62 USPQ2d 1425, 1428\n n.3, 1428-1429 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (distinguishing licenses which trigger the\n on-sale bar (e.g., a standard computer software license wherein the product is\n just as immediately transferred to the licensee as if it were sold), from\n licenses that merely grant rights to an invention which do not per\n se trigger the on-sale bar (e.g., exclusive rights to market the\n invention or potential patent rights)); Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark\n Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 1049 n. 2, 59 USPQ2d 1121, 1129 n. 2\n (Fed. Cir. 2001).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"“[A]n assignment or sale of the rights in the invention and potential patent rights is not a sale of ‘the invention’ within the meaning of [pre-AIA] section 102(b).” Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1267, 229 USPQ 805, 809 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Elan Corp., PLC v. Andrx Pharms. Inc., 366 F.3d 1336, 1341, 70 USPQ2d 1722, 1728 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Kollar, 286 F.3d 1326, 1330 n.3, 1330-1331, 62 USPQ2d 1425, 1428 n.3, 1428-1429 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (distinguishing licenses which trigger the on-sale bar (e.g., a standard computer software license wherein the product is just as immediately transferred to the licensee as if it were sold), from licenses that merely grant rights to an invention which do not per se trigger the on-sale bar (e.g., exclusive rights to market the invention or potential patent rights)); Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 1049 n. 2, 59 USPQ2d 1121, 1129 n. 2 (Fed. Cir. 2001).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204288","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"cs_oiaszrzt","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_oiaszrzt","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261 (1986)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 229 USPQ 805 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","all_citations":["793 F.2d 1261","229 USPQ 805"],"decision_year":1986,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_nsg3oetv","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_nsg3oetv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Elan Corp., PLC v. Andrx Pharms. Inc., 366 F.3d 1336 (2004)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Elan Corp., PLC v. Andrx Pharms. Inc.","canonical_citation":"Elan Corp., PLC v. Andrx Pharms. Inc., 366 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","all_citations":["366 F.3d 1336","70 USPQ2d 1722"],"decision_year":2004,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_tqphf753","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_tqphf753","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Kollar, 286 F.3d 1326 (2002)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"In re Kollar","canonical_citation":"In re Kollar, 286 F.3d 1326, 62 USPQ2d 1425 (Fed. Cir. 2002)","all_citations":["286 F.3d 1326","62 USPQ2d 1425"],"decision_year":2002,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_6ubb77jh","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_6ubb77jh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    “[T]he mere sale of manufacturing services by a\n contract manufacturer to an inventor to create embodiments of a patented\n product for the inventor does not constitute a ‘commercial sale’ of the\n invention.” Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., 827 F.3d 1363,\n 1373, 119 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc). The\n court in Medicines Co. further stated that “commercial\n benefit—even to both parties in a transaction—is not enough to trigger the\n on-sale bar of § 102(b); the transaction\n must be one in which the product is ‘on sale’ in the sense that it is\n ‘commercially marketed.’” Id. at 1373-74, 119 USPQ2d at\n 1336-37.\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"“[T]he mere sale of manufacturing services by a contract manufacturer to an inventor to create embodiments of a patented product for the inventor does not constitute a ‘commercial sale’ of the invention.” Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., 827 F.3d 1363, 1373, 119 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc). The court in Medicines Co. further stated that “commercial benefit—even to both parties in a transaction—is not enough to trigger the on-sale bar of § 102(b); the transaction must be one in which the product is ‘on sale’ in the sense that it is ‘commercially marketed.’” Id. at 1373-74, 119 USPQ2d at 1336-37.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_299b6_20ac0_106","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_2iqc4odv","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_2iqc4odv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"E. Buyer Must Be Uncontrolled by the Seller or Offerer","rendered_text_plain":"E. Buyer Must Be Uncontrolled by the Seller or Offerer","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/b.10","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"E. Buyer Must Be Uncontrolled by the Seller or Offerer","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_wmzb62pi","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_wmzb62pi","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    A sale or offer for sale must take place between separate\n entities. In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 676, 226 USPQ 1, 4\n (Fed. Cir. 1985). Where the parties to the alleged sale are related, whether\n there is a statutory bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)\n depends on whether the seller so controls the purchaser that the invention\n remains out of the public’s hands. Ferag AG v. Quipp, Inc.,\n 45 F.3d 1562, 1566, 33 USPQ2d 1512, 1515 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Where the seller is\n a parent company of the buyer company, but the President of the buyer company\n had “essentially unfettered” management authority over the operations of the\n buyer company, the sale was a statutory bar.).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"A sale or offer for sale must take place between separate entities. In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 676, 226 USPQ 1, 4 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Where the parties to the alleged sale are related, whether there is a statutory bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) depends on whether the seller so controls the purchaser that the invention remains out of the public’s hands. Ferag AG v. Quipp, Inc., 45 F.3d 1562, 1566, 33 USPQ2d 1512, 1515 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Where the seller is a parent company of the buyer company, but the President of the buyer company had “essentially unfettered” management authority over the operations of the buyer company, the sale was a statutory bar.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204317","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_gj2xmdcr","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_gj2xmdcr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"II. OFFERS FOR SALE","rendered_text_plain":"II. OFFERS FOR SALE","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/b.12","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"II. OFFERS FOR SALE","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_2gsyk2yp","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_2gsyk2yp","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    “Only an offer which rises to the level of a commercial offer for\n sale, one which the other party could make into a binding contract by simple\n acceptance (assuming consideration), constitutes an offer for sale under\n [pre-AIA]\n §102(b).” Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards,\n Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 1048, 59 USPQ2d 1121, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2001). \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"“Only an offer which rises to the level of a commercial offer for sale, one which the other party could make into a binding contract by simple acceptance (assuming consideration), constitutes an offer for sale under [pre-AIA] §102(b).” Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 1048, 59 USPQ2d 1121, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2001).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204330","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_7rw67qvk","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_7rw67qvk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"A. Rejected or Unreceived Offer for Sale Is Enough To Bar a\n Patent","rendered_text_plain":"A. Rejected or Unreceived Offer for Sale Is Enough To Bar a Patent","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/b.14","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"A. Rejected or Unreceived Offer for Sale Is Enough To Bar a Patent","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_4r5mj4qd","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_4r5mj4qd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Since the statute creates a bar when an invention is placed\n “on sale,” a mere offer to sell is sufficient commercial activity to bar a\n patent. In re Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 791, 204 USPQ 188, 192\n (CCPA 1979). Even a rejected offer may create an on sale bar. UMC\n Elecs. v. United States, 816 F.2d 647, 653, 2 USPQ2d 1465, 1469\n (Fed. Cir. 1987). In fact, the offer need not even be actually received by a\n prospective purchaser. Wende v. Horine, 225 F. 501 (7th Cir.\n 1915). \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Since the statute creates a bar when an invention is placed “on sale,” a mere offer to sell is sufficient commercial activity to bar a patent. In re Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 791, 204 USPQ 188, 192 (CCPA 1979). Even a rejected offer may create an on sale bar. UMC Elecs. v. United States, 816 F.2d 647, 653, 2 USPQ2d 1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1987). In fact, the offer need not even be actually received by a prospective purchaser. Wende v. Horine, 225 F. 501 (7th Cir. 1915).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204340","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"cs_54vk54um","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_54vk54um","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Theis, 610 F.2d 786 (1979)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"In re Theis","canonical_citation":"In re Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 204 USPQ 188 (CCPA 1979)","all_citations":["610 F.2d 786","204 USPQ 188"],"decision_year":1979,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_chf76hop","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_chf76hop","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"UMC Elecs. v. United States, 816 F.2d 647 (1987)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"UMC Elecs. v. United States","canonical_citation":"UMC Elecs. v. United States, 816 F.2d 647, 2 USPQ2d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1987)","all_citations":["816 F.2d 647","2 USPQ2d 1465"],"decision_year":1987,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_bbk5coke","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_bbk5coke","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"B. Delivery of the Offered Item Is Not Required","rendered_text_plain":"B. Delivery of the Offered Item Is Not Required","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/b.16","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"B. Delivery of the Offered Item Is Not Required","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_jmep7mbi","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_jmep7mbi","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    “It is not necessary that a sale be consummated for the bar to\n operate.” Buildex v. Kason Indus.,Inc., 849 F.2d 1461, 1463-64, 7 USPQ2d 1325, 1327-28 (Fed.\n Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). See also Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L.\n Clark, Inc., 163 F.3d 1326, 1333, 49 USPQ2d 1001, 1006-07 (Fed.\n Cir. 1998) (A signed purchase agreement prior to the critical date constituted\n a commercial offer; it was immaterial that there was no delivery of later\n patented caps and no exchange of money until after critical date.).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"“It is not necessary that a sale be consummated for the bar to operate.” Buildex v. Kason Indus.,Inc., 849 F.2d 1461, 1463-64, 7 USPQ2d 1325, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). See also Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark, Inc., 163 F.3d 1326, 1333, 49 USPQ2d 1001, 1006-07 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (A signed purchase agreement prior to the critical date constituted a commercial offer; it was immaterial that there was no delivery of later patented caps and no exchange of money until after critical date.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204356","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"cs_6xmjwcl5","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_6xmjwcl5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Buildex v. Kason Indus.,Inc., 849 F.2d 1461 (1988)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Buildex v. Kason Indus.,Inc.","canonical_citation":"Buildex v. Kason Indus.,Inc., 849 F.2d 1461, 7 USPQ2d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","all_citations":["849 F.2d 1461","7 USPQ2d 1325"],"decision_year":1988,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_af637dew","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_af637dew","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark, Inc., 163 F.3d 1326 (1998)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark, Inc., 163 F.3d 1326, 49 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1998)","all_citations":["163 F.3d 1326","49 USPQ2d 1001"],"decision_year":1998,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_6zno26yo","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_6zno26yo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"C. Seller Need Not Have the Goods “On Hand” When the Offer for Sale\n Is Made","rendered_text_plain":"C. Seller Need Not Have the Goods “On Hand” When the Offer for Sale Is Made","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/b.18","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"C. Seller Need Not Have the Goods “On Hand” When the Offer for Sale Is Made","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_zf7kshfp","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_zf7kshfp","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Goods need not be “on hand” and transferred at the time of the\n sale or offer. The date of the offer for sale is the effective date of the “on\n sale” activity. J. A. La Porte, Inc. v. Norfolk Dredging\n Co., 787 F.2d 1577, 1582, 229 USPQ 435, 438 (Fed. Cir. 1986).\n However, the invention must be complete and “ready for patenting” (see\n MPEP §\n 2133.03(c)) before the critical date. Pfaff\n v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 67, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647\n (1998). See also Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical\n Co., 103 F.3d 1538, 1545, 41 USPQ2d 1238, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1997)\n (The on-sale bar was not triggered by an offer to sell because the inventor\n “was not close to completion of the invention at the time of the alleged offer\n and had not demonstrated a high likelihood that the invention would work for\n its intended purpose upon completion.”); Shatterproof Glass Corp. v.\n Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 225 USPQ 634 (Fed. Cir. 1985)\n (Where there was no evidence that the samples shown to the potential customers\n were made by the new process and apparatus, the offer to sell did not rise to\n the level of an on sale bar.). Compare Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik\n AG v. Murata Mach., Ltd., 731 F.2d 831, 221 USPQ 561 (Fed. Cir.\n 1984) (Where a “make shift” model of the inventive product was shown to the\n potential purchasers in conjunction with the offer to sell, the offer was\n enough to bar a patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).).\n \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Goods need not be “on hand” and transferred at the time of the sale or offer. The date of the offer for sale is the effective date of the “on sale” activity. J. A. La Porte, Inc. v. Norfolk Dredging Co., 787 F.2d 1577, 1582, 229 USPQ 435, 438 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, the invention must be complete and “ready for patenting” (see MPEP § 2133.03(c)) before the critical date. Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 67, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998). See also Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co., 103 F.3d 1538, 1545, 41 USPQ2d 1238, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The on-sale bar was not triggered by an offer to sell because the inventor “was not close to completion of the invention at the time of the alleged offer and had not demonstrated a high likelihood that the invention would work for its intended purpose upon completion.”); Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 225 USPQ 634 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Where there was no evidence that the samples shown to the potential customers were made by the new process and apparatus, the offer to sell did not rise to the level of an on sale bar.). Compare Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach., Ltd., 731 F.2d 831, 221 USPQ 561 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Where a “make shift” model of the inventive product was shown to the potential purchasers in conjunction with the offer to sell, the offer was enough to bar a patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204372","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"cs_4p47xvvc","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_4p47xvvc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"J. A. La Porte, Inc. v. Norfolk Dredging Co., 787 F.2d 1577 (1986)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"J. A. La Porte, Inc. v. Norfolk Dredging Co.","canonical_citation":"J. A. La Porte, Inc. v. Norfolk Dredging Co., 787 F.2d 1577, 229 USPQ 435 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","all_citations":["787 F.2d 1577","229 USPQ 435"],"decision_year":1986,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_ekq4bbuu","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_ekq4bbuu","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co., 103 F.3d 1538 (1997)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co.","canonical_citation":"Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co., 103 F.3d 1538, 41 USPQ2d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","all_citations":["103 F.3d 1538","41 USPQ2d 1238"],"decision_year":1997,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_h66ayvl4","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_h66ayvl4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613 (1985)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co.","canonical_citation":"Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 225 USPQ 634 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","all_citations":["758 F.2d 613","225 USPQ 634"],"decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_24qtpns6","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_24qtpns6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach., Ltd., 731 F.2d 831 (1984)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach., Ltd.","canonical_citation":"Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach., Ltd., 731 F.2d 831, 221 USPQ 561 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","all_citations":["731 F.2d 831","221 USPQ 561"],"decision_year":1984,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_ury534yh","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ury534yh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"D. Material Terms of an Offer for Sale Must be Present","rendered_text_plain":"D. Material Terms of an Offer for Sale Must be Present","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/b.20","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"D. Material Terms of an Offer for Sale Must be Present","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_tr5rz5qi","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_tr5rz5qi","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    “[A] communication that fails to constitute a definite offer\n to sell the product and to include material terms is not an ‘offer’ in the\n contract sense.” Elan Corp., PLC v. Andrx Pharms. Inc., 366\n F.3d 1336, 1341, 70 USPQ2d 1722, 1728 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The court stated that\n an “offer to enter into a license under a patent for future sale of the\n invention covered by the patent when and if it has been developed... is not an\n offer to sell the patented invention that constitutes an on-sale bar.”\n Id., 70 USPQ2d at 1726. Accordingly, the court concluded\n that Elan’s letter was not an offer to sell a product. In addition, the court\n stated that the letter lacked material terms of a commercial offer such as\n pricing for the product, quantities, time and place of delivery, and product\n specifications and that the dollar amount in the letter was not a price term\n for the sale of the product but rather the amount requested was to form and\n continue a partnership, explicitly referred to as a “licensing fee.”\n Id.

    ","rendered_text_plain":"“[A] communication that fails to constitute a definite offer to sell the product and to include material terms is not an ‘offer’ in the contract sense.” Elan Corp., PLC v. Andrx Pharms. Inc., 366 F.3d 1336, 1341, 70 USPQ2d 1722, 1728 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The court stated that an “offer to enter into a license under a patent for future sale of the invention covered by the patent when and if it has been developed... is not an offer to sell the patented invention that constitutes an on-sale bar.” Id., 70 USPQ2d at 1726. Accordingly, the court concluded that Elan’s letter was not an offer to sell a product. In addition, the court stated that the letter lacked material terms of a commercial offer such as pricing for the product, quantities, time and place of delivery, and product specifications and that the dollar amount in the letter was not a price term for the sale of the product but rather the amount requested was to form and continue a partnership, explicitly referred to as a “licensing fee.” Id.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204397","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_w4e37nzo","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_w4e37nzo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"III. SALE BY INVENTOR, ASSIGNEE OR OTHERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INVENTOR IN THE\n COURSE OF BUSINESSA. Sale Activity Need Not Be Public","rendered_text_plain":"III. SALE BY INVENTOR, ASSIGNEE OR OTHERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INVENTOR IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS A. Sale Activity Need Not Be Public","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/b.22","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"III. SALE BY INVENTOR, ASSIGNEE OR OTHERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INVENTOR IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS A. Sale Activity Need Not Be Public","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_xfiyxhb4","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_xfiyxhb4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Unlike questions of public use, there is no requirement that\n “on sale” activity be “public.” “Public” as used in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 102(b) modifies “use” only. “Public” does not modify\n “sale.” Hobbs v. United States, 451 F.2d 849, 171 USPQ 713,\n 720 (5th Cir. 1971). It is noted that AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 102(a)(1) uses the same “on sale” term as\n pre-AIA\n 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and is treated as having the same\n meaning. Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,\n Inc., 139 S.Ct. 628, 129 USPQ2d 1189 (2019). See\n MPEP § 2152.02(d). \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Unlike questions of public use, there is no requirement that “on sale” activity be “public.” “Public” as used in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) modifies “use” only. “Public” does not modify “sale.” Hobbs v. United States, 451 F.2d 849, 171 USPQ 713, 720 (5th Cir. 1971). It is noted that AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) uses the same “on sale” term as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and is treated as having the same meaning. Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 139 S.Ct. 628, 129 USPQ2d 1189 (2019). See MPEP § 2152.02(d).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204417","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_6444lhz3","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_6444lhz3","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"B. Inventor’s Consent to the Sale Is Not a Prerequisite To Finding an\n On Sale Bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)","rendered_text_plain":"B. Inventor’s Consent to the Sale Is Not a Prerequisite To Finding an On Sale Bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/b.26","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"B. Inventor’s Consent to the Sale Is Not a Prerequisite To Finding an On Sale Bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_o3bktjvq","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_o3bktjvq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    If the invention was placed on sale by a third party who\n obtained the invention from the inventor, a patent is barred even if the\n inventor did not consent to the sale or have knowledge that the invention was\n embodied in the sold article. Electric Storage Battery Co. v.\n Shimadzu, 307 U.S. 5, 41 USPQ 155 (1938); In re\n Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 783, 113 USPQ 289, 292 (CCPA 1957);\n CTS Corp. v. Electro Materials Corp. of America, 469 F.\n Supp. 801, 819, 202 USPQ 22, 38 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"If the invention was placed on sale by a third party who obtained the invention from the inventor, a patent is barred even if the inventor did not consent to the sale or have knowledge that the invention was embodied in the sold article. Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu, 307 U.S. 5, 41 USPQ 155 (1938); In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 783, 113 USPQ 289, 292 (CCPA 1957); CTS Corp. v. Electro Materials Corp. of America, 469 F. Supp. 801, 819, 202 USPQ 22, 38 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204430","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"cs_cg5yrlse","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_cg5yrlse","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu, 307 U.S. 5 (1938)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu","canonical_citation":"Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu, 307 U.S. 5, 41 USPQ 155 (1938)","all_citations":["307 U.S. 5","41 USPQ 155"],"decision_year":1938,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_i43fhzbe","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_i43fhzbe","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"CTS Corp. v. Electro Materials Corp. of America, 469 F. Supp. 801 (1979)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"CTS Corp. v. Electro Materials Corp. of America","canonical_citation":"CTS Corp. v. Electro Materials Corp. of America, 469 F. Supp. 801, 202 USPQ 22 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)","all_citations":["469 F. Supp. 801","202 USPQ 22"],"decision_year":1979,"court":"S.D.N.Y.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_5d76rvdq","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_5d76rvdq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"C. Objective Evidence of Sale or Offer To Sell Is Needed","rendered_text_plain":"C. Objective Evidence of Sale or Offer To Sell Is Needed","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/b.28","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"C. Objective Evidence of Sale or Offer To Sell Is Needed","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_4tofdhxy","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_4tofdhxy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    In determining if a sale or offer to sell the claimed\n invention has occurred, a key question to ask is whether the inventor sold or\n offered for sale a product that embodies the invention claimed in the\n application. Objective evidence such as a description of the inventive product\n in the contract of sale or in another communication with the purchaser controls\n over an uncommunicated intent by the seller to deliver the inventive product\n under the contract for sale. Ferag AG v. Quipp, Inc., 45\n F.3d 1562, 1567, 33 USPQ2d 1512, 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (On sale bar found where\n initial negotiations and agreement containing contract for sale neither clearly\n specified nor precluded use of the inventive design, but an order confirmation\n prior to the critical date did specify use of inventive design.). The purchaser\n need not have actual knowledge of the invention for it to be on sale. The\n determination of whether “the offered product is in fact the claimed invention\n may be established by any relevant evidence, such as memoranda, drawings,\n correspondence, and testimony of witnesses.” RCA Corp. v. Data Gen.\n Corp., 887 F.2d 1056, 1060, 12 USPQ2d 1449, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1989).\n However, “what the purchaser reasonably believes the inventor to be offering is\n relevant to whether, on balance, the offer objectively may be said to be of the\n patented invention.” Envirotech Corp. v. Westech Eng’g,\n Inc., 904 F.2d 1571, 1576, 15 USPQ2d 1230, 1234 (Fed. Cir. 1990)\n (Where a proposal to supply a general contractor with a product did not mention\n a new design but, rather, referenced a prior art design, the uncommunicated\n intent of the supplier to supply the new design if awarded the contract did not\n constitute an “on sale” bar to a patent on the new design, even though the\n supplier’s bid reflected the lower cost of the new design.). \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"In determining if a sale or offer to sell the claimed invention has occurred, a key question to ask is whether the inventor sold or offered for sale a product that embodies the invention claimed in the application. Objective evidence such as a description of the inventive product in the contract of sale or in another communication with the purchaser controls over an uncommunicated intent by the seller to deliver the inventive product under the contract for sale. Ferag AG v. Quipp, Inc., 45 F.3d 1562, 1567, 33 USPQ2d 1512, 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (On sale bar found where initial negotiations and agreement containing contract for sale neither clearly specified nor precluded use of the inventive design, but an order confirmation prior to the critical date did specify use of inventive design.). The purchaser need not have actual knowledge of the invention for it to be on sale. The determination of whether “the offered product is in fact the claimed invention may be established by any relevant evidence, such as memoranda, drawings, correspondence, and testimony of witnesses.” RCA Corp. v. Data Gen. Corp., 887 F.2d 1056, 1060, 12 USPQ2d 1449, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1989). However, “what the purchaser reasonably believes the inventor to be offering is relevant to whether, on balance, the offer objectively may be said to be of the patented invention.” Envirotech Corp. v. Westech Eng’g, Inc., 904 F.2d 1571, 1576, 15 USPQ2d 1230, 1234 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Where a proposal to supply a general contractor with a product did not mention a new design but, rather, referenced a prior art design, the uncommunicated intent of the supplier to supply the new design if awarded the contract did not constitute an “on sale” bar to a patent on the new design, even though the supplier’s bid reflected the lower cost of the new design.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204446","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"cs_gx2bqtx2","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_gx2bqtx2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Envirotech Corp. v. Westech Eng’g, Inc., 904 F.2d 1571 (1990)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Envirotech Corp. v. Westech Eng’g, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Envirotech Corp. v. Westech Eng’g, Inc., 904 F.2d 1571, 15 USPQ2d 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","all_citations":["904 F.2d 1571","15 USPQ2d 1230"],"decision_year":1990,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_breltp2u","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_breltp2u","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"IV. SALES BY INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTIES","rendered_text_plain":"IV. SALES BY INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTIES","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/b.30","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"IV. SALES BY INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTIES","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"ls_dmcjkmik","node_type":"list","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/ls_dmcjkmik","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/ul.7","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_style":"no_enumerator","nesting_depth":1,"host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep","parent_list_item_id":null,"item_ids":["li_jb7ihjr7"]},{"id":"li_jb7ihjr7","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_jb7ihjr7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • ","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/ul.7/li.0","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"","enumerator_ordinal":0,"parent_list_id":"ls_dmcjkmik","child_ids":null},{"id":"pb_xm5gghdx","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_xm5gghdx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"A. Sales or Offers for Sale by Independent Third Parties May be Prior\n Art","rendered_text_plain":"A. Sales or Offers for Sale by Independent Third Parties May be Prior Art","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/b.32","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"A. Sales or Offers for Sale by Independent Third Parties May be Prior Art","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_mgodm5lg","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_mgodm5lg","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    A sale or offer for sale of the invention by an independent\n third party more than 1 year before the effective filing date of applicant’s\n claimed invention may be applied as prior art and may prevent applicant from\n obtaining a patent. “An exception to this rule exists where a patented method\n is kept secret and remains secret after a sale of the unpatented product of the\n method. Such a sale prior to the critical date is a bar if engaged in by the\n patentee or patent applicant, but not if engaged in by another.” In re\n Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 675-76, 226 USPQ 1, 3-4 (Fed. Cir.\n 1985).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"A sale or offer for sale of the invention by an independent third party more than 1 year before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention may be applied as prior art and may prevent applicant from obtaining a patent. “An exception to this rule exists where a patented method is kept secret and remains secret after a sale of the unpatented product of the method. Such a sale prior to the critical date is a bar if engaged in by the patentee or patent applicant, but not if engaged in by another.” In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 675-76, 226 USPQ 1, 3-4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204472","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_ztqvjfve","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ztqvjfve","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"B. Nonprior Art Publications Can Be Used as Evidence of Sale Before\n the Critical Date","rendered_text_plain":"B. Nonprior Art Publications Can Be Used as Evidence of Sale Before the Critical Date","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204201/b.34","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"B. Nonprior Art Publications Can Be Used as Evidence of Sale Before the Critical Date","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"pb_xsfv2pas","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_xsfv2pas","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Abstracts identifying a product’s vendor containing\n information useful to potential buyers such as whom to contact, price terms,\n documentation, warranties, training and maintenance along with the date of\n product release or installation before the inventor’s critical date may provide\n sufficient evidence of prior sale by a third party to support a rejection based\n on pre-AIA 35\n U.S.C. 102(b) or 103. In re\n Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Examiner's\n rejection was based on nonprior art published abstracts which disclosed\n software products meeting the claims. The abstracts specified software release\n dates and dates of first installation which were more than 1 year before\n applicant’s filing date.).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Abstracts identifying a product’s vendor containing information useful to potential buyers such as whom to contact, price terms, documentation, warranties, training and maintenance along with the date of product release or installation before the inventor’s critical date may provide sufficient evidence of prior sale by a third party to support a rejection based on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) or 103. In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Examiner's rejection was based on nonprior art published abstracts which disclosed software products meeting the claims. The abstracts specified software release dates and dates of first installation which were more than 1 year before applicant’s filing date.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204482","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xrf436ep"},{"id":"cs_7vav5x45","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_7vav5x45","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559 (1994)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"In re Epstein","canonical_citation":"In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994)","all_citations":["32 F.3d 1559","31 USPQ2d 1817"],"decision_year":1994,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"se_mafrnpsk","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_mafrnpsk","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_c","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_c","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204494","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2133.03(c)","chapter":"2100","depth":2,"title":"The “Invention”","children_ids":["pb_af65nprm","sb_nmspoef7","pb_3lm5swg2","pb_7xr5kiuo","pb_6ceahkms","pb_k67xikjx","pb_qo4hs3a6","pb_36ns3blf","pb_jqawumqd","pb_jehmnhlq","pb_bjiugjv6","pb_5lerjmmd","pb_jweb225q","pb_qw3owrur"],"revision_tag":"R-07.2022","parent_section_id":"se_mogr5s4n"},{"id":"pb_af65nprm","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_af65nprm","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    [Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to\n applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF)\n provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See\n MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application\n is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP §\n 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to\n those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for\n a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of\n AIA\n 35 U.S.C. 102.]

    ","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP § 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c93_1fa","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_mafrnpsk","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"ls_dwns24wa","node_type":"list","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/ls_dwns24wa","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204508","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_style":"alpha_lower","nesting_depth":1,"host_section_id":"se_mafrnpsk","parent_list_item_id":null,"item_ids":["li_z66i745p"]},{"id":"li_z66i745p","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_z66i745p","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • (b) the invention was…in public use or on sale in this\n country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent\n in the United States\n
    • ","rendered_text_plain":"(b) the invention was…in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204508","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(b)","enumerator_ordinal":0,"parent_list_id":"ls_dwns24wa","child_ids":null},{"id":"sb_nmspoef7","node_type":"statutory_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/sb_nmspoef7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204498","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","citation_title_text":"Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102","heading":"Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.","body_list_id":"ls_dwns24wa","host_section_id":"se_mafrnpsk"},{"id":"pb_3lm5swg2","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_3lm5swg2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    *****

    ","rendered_text_plain":"*****","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204498/p.0","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"excluded_text","host_section_id":"se_mafrnpsk","tags":["edit_history:excluded"]},{"id":"pb_7xr5kiuo","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_7xr5kiuo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    *****

    ","rendered_text_plain":"*****","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204498/p.1","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"excluded_text","host_section_id":"se_mafrnpsk","tags":["edit_history:excluded"]},{"id":"pb_6ceahkms","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_6ceahkms","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    (Emphasis added).

    ","rendered_text_plain":"(Emphasis added).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204516","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_mafrnpsk"},{"id":"pb_k67xikjx","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_k67xikjx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"I. THE INVENTION MUST BE “READY FOR PATENTING”","rendered_text_plain":"I. THE INVENTION MUST BE “READY FOR PATENTING”","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204494/b.0","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"I. THE INVENTION MUST BE “READY FOR PATENTING”","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_mafrnpsk"},{"id":"pb_qo4hs3a6","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_qo4hs3a6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    In Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55,\n 66-68, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998), the Supreme Court enunciated a two-prong test\n for determining whether an invention was “on sale” within the meaning of\n pre-AIA 35\n U.S.C. 102(b) even if it had not yet been reduced to\n practice. “[T]he on-sale bar applies when two conditions are satisfied before the\n critical date [more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed\n invention]. First, the product must be the subject of a commercial offer for\n sale…. Second, the invention must be ready for patenting.” Id.\n at 67, 119 S.Ct. at 311-12, 48 USPQ2d at 1646-47. \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"In Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 66-68, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998), the Supreme Court enunciated a two-prong test for determining whether an invention was “on sale” within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) even if it had not yet been reduced to practice. “[T]he on-sale bar applies when two conditions are satisfied before the critical date [more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention]. First, the product must be the subject of a commercial offer for sale…. Second, the invention must be ready for patenting.” Id. at 67, 119 S.Ct. at 311-12, 48 USPQ2d at 1646-47.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204525","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_mafrnpsk"},{"id":"pb_36ns3blf","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_36ns3blf","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    The Federal Circuit explained that the Supreme Court’s “ready for\n patenting” prong applies in the context of both the on sale and public use bars.\n Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Manufacturing L.P., 424 F.3d\n 1374, 1379, 76 USPQ2d 1741, 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A bar under [pre-AIA] section\n 102(b) arises where, before the critical date, the invention\n is in public use and ready for patenting.”). “Ready for patenting,” the second\n prong of the Pfaff test, “may be satisfied in at least two\n ways: by proof of reduction to practice before the critical date; or by proof that\n prior to the critical date the inventor had prepared drawings or other\n descriptions of the invention that were sufficiently specific to enable a person\n skilled in the art to practice the invention.” Id. at 67, 199\n S.Ct. at 311-12, 48 USPQ2d at 1647 (The patent was held invalid because the\n invention for a computer chip socket was “ready for patenting” when it was offered\n for sale more than one year prior to the application filing date. Even though the\n invention had not yet been reduced to practice, the manufacturer was able to\n produce the claimed computer chip sockets using the inventor’s detailed drawings\n and specifications, and those sockets contained all elements of invention claimed\n in the patent.). See also Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark Inc.,\n 163 F.3d 1326, 1333, 49 USPQ2d 1001, 1006-07 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The invention was\n held “ready for patenting” since the detailed drawings of plastic dispensing caps\n offered for sale “contained each limitation of the claims and were sufficiently\n specific to enable person skilled in art to practice the invention”.). \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"The Federal Circuit explained that the Supreme Court’s “ready for patenting” prong applies in the context of both the on sale and public use bars. Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Manufacturing L.P., 424 F.3d 1374, 1379, 76 USPQ2d 1741, 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A bar under [pre-AIA] section 102(b) arises where, before the critical date, the invention is in public use and ready for patenting.”). “Ready for patenting,” the second prong of the Pfaff test, “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.” Id. at 67, 199 S.Ct. at 311-12, 48 USPQ2d at 1647 (The patent was held invalid because the invention for a computer chip socket was “ready for patenting” when it was offered for sale more than one year prior to the application filing date. Even though the invention had not yet been reduced to practice, the manufacturer was able to produce the claimed computer chip sockets using the inventor’s detailed drawings and specifications, and those sockets contained all elements of invention claimed in the patent.). See also Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark Inc., 163 F.3d 1326, 1333, 49 USPQ2d 1001, 1006-07 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The invention was held “ready for patenting” since the detailed drawings of plastic dispensing caps offered for sale “contained each limitation of the claims and were sufficiently specific to enable person skilled in art to practice the invention”.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204534","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_mafrnpsk"},{"id":"cs_mdkdo23w","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_mdkdo23w","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark Inc., 163 F.3d 1326 (1998)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark Inc.","canonical_citation":"Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark Inc., 163 F.3d 1326, 49 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1998)","all_citations":["163 F.3d 1326","49 USPQ2d 1001"],"decision_year":1998,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_jqawumqd","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_jqawumqd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    If the invention had been actually reduced to practice before\n being sold or offered for sale more than 1 year before filing of the application,\n a patent will be barred. Vanmoor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 201\n F.3d 1363, 1366-67, 53 USPQ2d 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Here the pre-critical\n date sales were of completed cartridges made to specifications that remained\n unchanged to the present day, showing that any invention embodied in the accused\n cartridges was reduced to practice before the critical date. The\n Pfaff ready for patenting condition is also satisfied\n because the specification drawings, available prior to the critical date, were\n actually used to produce the accused cartridges.”); In re\n Hamilton, 882 F.2d 1576, 1580, 11 USPQ2d 1890, 1893 (Fed. Cir. 1989).\n \n \"If a product that is offered for sale\n inherently possesses each of the limitations of the claims, then the invention\n is on sale, whether or not the parties to the transaction recognize that the\n product possesses the claimed characteristics.\"\n \n \n Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 182 F.3d\n 1315, 1319, 51 USPQ2d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Claim for a particular\n anhydrous crystalline form of a pharmaceutical compound was held invalid under the\n on-sale bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b), even though the parties to the\n U.S. sales of the foreign manufactured compound did not know the identity of the\n particular crystalline form.); STX LLC. v. Brine Inc., 211 F.3d\n 588, 591, 54 USPQ2d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Claim for a lacrosse stick was\n held invalid under the on-sale bar despite the argument that it was not known at\n the time of sale whether the sticks possessed the recited “improved playing and\n handling characteristics.” “Subjective qualities inherent in a product, such as\n ‘improved playing and handling’, cannot serve as an escape hatch to circumvent an\n on-sale bar.”). Actual reduction to practice in the context of an on-sale bar\n issue usually requires testing under actual working conditions in such a way as to\n demonstrate the practical utility of an invention for its intended purpose beyond\n the probability of failure, unless by virtue of the very simplicity of an\n invention its practical operativeness is clear. Field v.\n Knowles, 183 F.2d 593, 601, 86 USPQ 373, 379 (CCPA 1950);\n Steinberg v. Seitz, 517 F.2d 1359, 1363, 186 USPQ 209, 212\n (CCPA 1975). \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"If the invention had been actually reduced to practice before being sold or offered for sale more than 1 year before filing of the application, a patent will be barred. Vanmoor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 201 F.3d 1363, 1366-67, 53 USPQ2d 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Here the pre-critical date sales were of completed cartridges made to specifications that remained unchanged to the present day, showing that any invention embodied in the accused cartridges was reduced to practice before the critical date. The Pfaff ready for patenting condition is also satisfied because the specification drawings, available prior to the critical date, were actually used to produce the accused cartridges.”); In re Hamilton, 882 F.2d 1576, 1580, 11 USPQ2d 1890, 1893 (Fed. Cir. 1989). \"If a product that is offered for sale inherently possesses each of the limitations of the claims, then the invention is on sale, whether or not the parties to the transaction recognize that the product possesses the claimed characteristics.\" Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 182 F.3d 1315, 1319, 51 USPQ2d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Claim for a particular anhydrous crystalline form of a pharmaceutical compound was held invalid under the on-sale bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b), even though the parties to the U.S. sales of the foreign manufactured compound did not know the identity of the particular crystalline form.); STX LLC. v. Brine Inc., 211 F.3d 588, 591, 54 USPQ2d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Claim for a lacrosse stick was held invalid under the on-sale bar despite the argument that it was not known at the time of sale whether the sticks possessed the recited “improved playing and handling characteristics.” “Subjective qualities inherent in a product, such as ‘improved playing and handling’, cannot serve as an escape hatch to circumvent an on-sale bar.”). Actual reduction to practice in the context of an on-sale bar issue usually requires testing under actual working conditions in such a way as to demonstrate the practical utility of an invention for its intended purpose beyond the probability of failure, unless by virtue of the very simplicity of an invention its practical operativeness is clear. Field v. Knowles, 183 F.2d 593, 601, 86 USPQ 373, 379 (CCPA 1950); Steinberg v. Seitz, 517 F.2d 1359, 1363, 186 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1975).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204555","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_mafrnpsk"},{"id":"cs_32k4bzsq","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_32k4bzsq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Vanmoor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 201 F.3d 1363 (2000)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Vanmoor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Vanmoor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 201 F.3d 1363, 53 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2000)","all_citations":["201 F.3d 1363","53 USPQ2d 1377"],"decision_year":2000,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_dyp3eytq","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_dyp3eytq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Hamilton, 882 F.2d 1576 (1989)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"In re Hamilton","canonical_citation":"In re Hamilton, 882 F.2d 1576, 11 USPQ2d 1890 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","all_citations":["882 F.2d 1576","11 USPQ2d 1890"],"decision_year":1989,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_xp2fr7e5","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_xp2fr7e5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 182 F.3d 1315 (1999)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 182 F.3d 1315, 51 USPQ2d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1999)","all_citations":["182 F.3d 1315","51 USPQ2d 1307"],"decision_year":1999,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_gquestrs","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_gquestrs","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"STX LLC. v. Brine Inc., 211 F.3d 588 (2000)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"STX LLC. v. Brine Inc.","canonical_citation":"STX LLC. v. Brine Inc., 211 F.3d 588, 54 USPQ2d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000)","all_citations":["211 F.3d 588","54 USPQ2d 1347"],"decision_year":2000,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_zvuutgsv","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_zvuutgsv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Field v. Knowles, 183 F.2d 593 (1950)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Field v. Knowles","canonical_citation":"Field v. Knowles, 183 F.2d 593, 86 USPQ 373 (CCPA 1950)","all_citations":["183 F.2d 593","86 USPQ 373"],"decision_year":1950,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_fo37s3rq","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_fo37s3rq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Steinberg v. Seitz, 517 F.2d 1359 (1975)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Steinberg v. Seitz","canonical_citation":"Steinberg v. Seitz, 517 F.2d 1359, 186 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1975)","all_citations":["517 F.2d 1359","186 USPQ 209"],"decision_year":1975,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_jehmnhlq","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_jehmnhlq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    The invention need not be ready for satisfactory commercial\n marketing for sale to bar a patent. Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex\n Corp., 970 F.2d 834, 836-37, 23 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1992).\n \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"The invention need not be ready for satisfactory commercial marketing for sale to bar a patent. Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp., 970 F.2d 834, 836-37, 23 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1992).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204585","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_mafrnpsk"},{"id":"pb_bjiugjv6","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_bjiugjv6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"II. INVENTOR HAS SUBMITTED A 37 CFR 1.131 AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION","rendered_text_plain":"II. INVENTOR HAS SUBMITTED A 37 CFR 1.131 AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204494/b.2","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"II. INVENTOR HAS SUBMITTED A 37 CFR 1.131 AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_mafrnpsk"},{"id":"pb_5lerjmmd","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_5lerjmmd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Affidavits or declarations submitted under 37 CFR\n 1.131 to swear behind a reference may constitute, among\n other things, an admission that an invention was “complete” more than 1 year\n before the filing of an application. See In re Foster, 343 F.2d\n 980, 987-88, 145 USPQ 166, 173 (CCPA 1965); Dart Indus. v. E.I. duPont de\n Nemours & Co., 489 F.2d 1359, 1365, 179 USPQ 392, 396 (7th Cir.\n 1973). Also see MPEP\n § 715.10. \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Affidavits or declarations submitted under 37 CFR 1.131 to swear behind a reference may constitute, among other things, an admission that an invention was “complete” more than 1 year before the filing of an application. See In re Foster, 343 F.2d 980, 987-88, 145 USPQ 166, 173 (CCPA 1965); Dart Indus. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 489 F.2d 1359, 1365, 179 USPQ 392, 396 (7th Cir. 1973). Also see MPEP § 715.10.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204595","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_mafrnpsk"},{"id":"cs_3vhmmesh","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_3vhmmesh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Dart Indus. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 489 F.2d 1359 (1973)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Dart Indus. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co.","canonical_citation":"Dart Indus. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 489 F.2d 1359, 179 USPQ 392 (7th Cir. 1973)","all_citations":["489 F.2d 1359","179 USPQ 392"],"decision_year":1973,"court":"7th Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"se_65ns7wh3","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_65ns7wh3","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_715","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_715","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"stub-715","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"715","chapter":"700","depth":0,"title":"Section 715","children_ids":[]},{"id":"pb_jweb225q","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_jweb225q","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"III. SALE OF A PROCESS","rendered_text_plain":"III. SALE OF A PROCESS","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204494/b.4","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"III. SALE OF A PROCESS","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_mafrnpsk"},{"id":"pb_qw3owrur","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_qw3owrur","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    A claimed process, which is a series of acts or steps, is not\n sold in the same sense as is a claimed product, device, or apparatus, which is a\n tangible item. “‘Know-how’ describing what the process consists of and how the\n process should be carried out may be sold in the sense that the buyer acquires\n knowledge of the process and obtains the freedom to carry it out pursuant to the\n terms of the transaction. However, such a transaction is not a ‘sale’ of the\n invention within the meaning of [pre-AIA] §102(b) because the\n process has not been carried out or performed as a result of the transaction.”\n In re Kollar, 286 F.3d 1326, 1332, 62 USPQ2d 1425, 1429\n (Fed. Cir. 2002). However, sale of a product made by the claimed process by the\n patentee or a licensee would constitute a sale of the process within the meaning\n of pre-AIA 35\n U.S.C. 102(b). See id. at 1333, 62 USPQ2d\n at 1429; D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp., 714 F.2d 1144,\n 1147-48, 219 USPQ 13, 15-16 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Even though the sale of a product\n made by a claimed method before the critical date did not reveal anything about\n the method to the public, the sale resulted in a “forfeiture” of any right to a\n patent to that method); W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock,\n Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550, 220 USPQ 303, 310 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The\n application of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) would also be triggered by\n actually performing the claimed process itself for consideration. See\n Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C., 269 F.3d 1321, 1328,\n 60 USPQ2d 1687, 1691(Fed. Cir. 2001) (Patent was held invalid under\n pre-AIA 35\n U.S.C. 102(b) based on patentee’s offer to perform the\n claimed process for treating oil refinery waste more than one year before filing\n the patent application). Moreover, the sale of a device embodying a claimed\n process may trigger the on-sale bar. Minton v. National Ass’n. of\n Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1378, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1618\n (Fed. Cir. 2003) (finding a fully operational computer program implementing and\n thus embodying the claimed method to trigger the on-sale bar). However, the sale\n of a prior art device different from that disclosed in a patent that is asserted\n after the critical date to be capable of performing the claimed method is not an\n on-sale bar of the process. Poly-America LP v. GSE Lining Tech.\n Inc., 383 F.3d 1303, 1308-09, 72 USPQ2d 1685, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir.\n 2004) (stating that the transaction involving the sale of the prior art device did\n not involve a transaction of the claimed method but instead only a device\n different from that described in the patent for carrying out the claimed method,\n where the device was not used to practice the claimed method until well after the\n critical date, and where there was evidence that it was not even known whether the\n device could perform the claimed process).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"A claimed process, which is a series of acts or steps, is not sold in the same sense as is a claimed product, device, or apparatus, which is a tangible item. “‘Know-how’ describing what the process consists of and how the process should be carried out may be sold in the sense that the buyer acquires knowledge of the process and obtains the freedom to carry it out pursuant to the terms of the transaction. However, such a transaction is not a ‘sale’ of the invention within the meaning of [pre-AIA] §102(b) because the process has not been carried out or performed as a result of the transaction.” In re Kollar, 286 F.3d 1326, 1332, 62 USPQ2d 1425, 1429 (Fed. Cir. 2002). However, sale of a product made by the claimed process by the patentee or a licensee would constitute a sale of the process within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). See id. at 1333, 62 USPQ2d at 1429; D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp., 714 F.2d 1144, 1147-48, 219 USPQ 13, 15-16 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Even though the sale of a product made by a claimed method before the critical date did not reveal anything about the method to the public, the sale resulted in a “forfeiture” of any right to a patent to that method); W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550, 220 USPQ 303, 310 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The application of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) would also be triggered by actually performing the claimed process itself for consideration. See Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C., 269 F.3d 1321, 1328, 60 USPQ2d 1687, 1691(Fed. Cir. 2001) (Patent was held invalid under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) based on patentee’s offer to perform the claimed process for treating oil refinery waste more than one year before filing the patent application). Moreover, the sale of a device embodying a claimed process may trigger the on-sale bar. Minton v. National Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1378, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (finding a fully operational computer program implementing and thus embodying the claimed method to trigger the on-sale bar). However, the sale of a prior art device different from that disclosed in a patent that is asserted after the critical date to be capable of performing the claimed method is not an on-sale bar of the process. Poly-America LP v. GSE Lining Tech. Inc., 383 F.3d 1303, 1308-09, 72 USPQ2d 1685, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating that the transaction involving the sale of the prior art device did not involve a transaction of the claimed method but instead only a device different from that described in the patent for carrying out the claimed method, where the device was not used to practice the claimed method until well after the critical date, and where there was evidence that it was not even known whether the device could perform the claimed process).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204614","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_mafrnpsk"},{"id":"cs_kdahteue","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_kdahteue","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp., 714 F.2d 1144 (1983)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp.","canonical_citation":"D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp., 714 F.2d 1144, 219 USPQ 13 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","all_citations":["714 F.2d 1144","219 USPQ 13"],"decision_year":1983,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_fpwr3o3i","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_fpwr3o3i","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540 (1983)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.","canonical_citation":"W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","all_citations":["721 F.2d 1540","220 USPQ 303"],"decision_year":1983,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_gllbbh4l","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_gllbbh4l","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C., 269 F.3d 1321 (2001)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C.","canonical_citation":"Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C., 269 F.3d 1321, 60 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2001)","all_citations":["269 F.3d 1321","60 USPQ2d 1687"],"decision_year":2001,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_fbxgdfxz","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_fbxgdfxz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Minton v. National Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373 (2003)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Minton v. National Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Minton v. National Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 2003)","all_citations":["336 F.3d 1373","67 USPQ2d 1614"],"decision_year":2003,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_g3slhoom","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_g3slhoom","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Poly-America LP v. GSE Lining Tech. Inc., 383 F.3d 1303 (2004)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Poly-America LP v. GSE Lining Tech. Inc.","canonical_citation":"Poly-America LP v. GSE Lining Tech. Inc., 383 F.3d 1303, 72 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","all_citations":["383 F.3d 1303","72 USPQ2d 1685"],"decision_year":2004,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"se_wz3kymoc","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_wz3kymoc","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_d","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_d","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204651","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2133.03(d)","chapter":"2100","depth":2,"title":"“In This Country”","children_ids":["pb_bt7mmeqx","pb_xwotuqbd"],"revision_tag":"R-10.2019","parent_section_id":"se_mogr5s4n"},{"id":"pb_bt7mmeqx","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_bt7mmeqx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    [Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to\n applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF)\n provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See\n MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application\n is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP §\n 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to\n those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for\n a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of\n AIA\n 35 U.S.C. 102.]

    ","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP § 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18cb0_4c","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_wz3kymoc","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"pb_xwotuqbd","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_xwotuqbd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    The language “in this country” in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 102(b) does not include other WTO or NAFTA member countries,\n but includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any\n commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. See also\n 35 U.S.C.\n 105. For purposes of judging the applicability of the\n pre-AIA\n 35 U.S.C. 102(b) bars, public use or on sale activity must take\n place in the United States. The “on sale” bar does not generally apply where both\n manufacture and delivery occur in a foreign country. Gandy v. Main Belting\n Co., 143 U.S. 587, 593 (1892). However, “on sale” status can be found if\n substantial activity prefatory to a “sale” occurs in the United States.\n Robbins Co. v. Lawrence Mfg. Co., 482 F.2d 426, 433, 178 USPQ\n 577, 583 (9th Cir. 1973). An offer for sale, made or originating in this country, may\n be sufficient prefatory activity to bring the offer within the terms of the statute,\n even though sale and delivery take place in a foreign country. The same rationale\n applies to an offer by a foreign manufacturer which is communicated to a prospective\n purchaser in the United States prior to the critical date. CTS Corp. v.\n Piher Int’l Corp., 593 F.2d 777, 201 USPQ 649 (7th Cir. 1979).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"The language “in this country” in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) does not include other WTO or NAFTA member countries, but includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. See also 35 U.S.C. 105. For purposes of judging the applicability of the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) bars, public use or on sale activity must take place in the United States. The “on sale” bar does not generally apply where both manufacture and delivery occur in a foreign country. Gandy v. Main Belting Co., 143 U.S. 587, 593 (1892). However, “on sale” status can be found if substantial activity prefatory to a “sale” occurs in the United States. Robbins Co. v. Lawrence Mfg. Co., 482 F.2d 426, 433, 178 USPQ 577, 583 (9th Cir. 1973). An offer for sale, made or originating in this country, may be sufficient prefatory activity to bring the offer within the terms of the statute, even though sale and delivery take place in a foreign country. The same rationale applies to an offer by a foreign manufacturer which is communicated to a prospective purchaser in the United States prior to the critical date. CTS Corp. v. Piher Int’l Corp., 593 F.2d 777, 201 USPQ 649 (7th Cir. 1979).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204655","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_wz3kymoc"},{"id":"cs_vo6rjnid","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_vo6rjnid","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Gandy v. Main Belting Co., 143 U.S. 587 (1892)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Gandy v. Main Belting Co.","canonical_citation":"Gandy v. Main Belting Co., 143 U.S. 587 (1892)","all_citations":["143 U.S. 587"],"decision_year":1892,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_fhforfaz","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_fhforfaz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Robbins Co. v. Lawrence Mfg. Co., 482 F.2d 426 (1973)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Robbins Co. v. Lawrence Mfg. Co.","canonical_citation":"Robbins Co. v. Lawrence Mfg. Co., 482 F.2d 426, 178 USPQ 577 (9th Cir. 1973)","all_citations":["482 F.2d 426","178 USPQ 577"],"decision_year":1973,"court":"9th Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_y3hwtoje","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_y3hwtoje","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"CTS Corp. v. Piher Int’l Corp., 593 F.2d 777 (1979)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"CTS Corp. v. Piher Int’l Corp.","canonical_citation":"CTS Corp. v. Piher Int’l Corp., 593 F.2d 777, 201 USPQ 649 (7th Cir. 1979)","all_citations":["593 F.2d 777","201 USPQ 649"],"decision_year":1979,"court":"7th Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"st_i5vuw5ho","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_i5vuw5ho","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"105","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 105"},{"id":"se_22cqpxh6","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_22cqpxh6","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_e","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_e","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204670","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2133.03(e)","chapter":"2100","depth":2,"title":"Permitted Activity; Experimental Use","children_ids":["pb_5u4q74kc","pb_7apf7arw","pb_ap4zj3as","se_nq4bgqe3","se_4b2mj46u","se_p6j3pjgw","se_2jz4qpt7","se_7h5vbxzg","se_fh3yy2i4","se_3rfca2vp"],"revision_tag":"R-07.2022","parent_section_id":"se_mogr5s4n"},{"id":"pb_5u4q74kc","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_5u4q74kc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    [Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to\n applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF)\n provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See\n MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application\n is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP §\n 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to\n those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for\n a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of\n AIA\n 35 U.S.C. 102.]

    ","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP § 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18ce9_251","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_22cqpxh6","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"pb_7apf7arw","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_7apf7arw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    The question posed by the experimental use doctrine is “whether the\n primary purpose of the inventor at the time of the sale, as determined from an\n objective evaluation of the facts surrounding the transaction, was to conduct\n experimentation.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299\n F.3d 1336, 1354, 63 USPQ2d 1769, 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting EZ Dock v.\n Schafer Sys., Inc., 276 F.3d 1347, 1356-57, 61 USPQ2d 1289, 1295-96\n (Fed. Cir. 2002)) (Linn, J., concurring). Experimentation must be the primary purpose\n and any commercial exploitation must be incidental in order for the sale to be a\n permitted activity that does not create a bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n 102(b). \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"The question posed by the experimental use doctrine is “whether the primary purpose of the inventor at the time of the sale, as determined from an objective evaluation of the facts surrounding the transaction, was to conduct experimentation.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1354, 63 USPQ2d 1769, 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting EZ Dock v. Schafer Sys., Inc., 276 F.3d 1347, 1356-57, 61 USPQ2d 1289, 1295-96 (Fed. Cir. 2002)) (Linn, J., concurring). Experimentation must be the primary purpose and any commercial exploitation must be incidental in order for the sale to be a permitted activity that does not create a bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204678","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_22cqpxh6"},{"id":"cs_eh3yo5re","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_eh3yo5re","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336 (2002)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc.","canonical_citation":"Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 63 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2002)","all_citations":["299 F.3d 1336","63 USPQ2d 1769"],"decision_year":2002,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_4roshx7h","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_4roshx7h","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"EZ Dock v. Schafer Sys., Inc., 276 F.3d 1347 (2002)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"EZ Dock v. Schafer Sys., Inc.","canonical_citation":"EZ Dock v. Schafer Sys., Inc., 276 F.3d 1347, 61 USPQ2d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2002)","all_citations":["276 F.3d 1347","61 USPQ2d 1289"],"decision_year":2002,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_ap4zj3as","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ap4zj3as","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    If the use or sale was experimental, there is no bar under\n pre-AIA 35\n U.S.C. 102(b). “A use or sale is experimental for purposes of\n [pre-AIA]\n section 102(b) if it represents a bona fide\n effort to perfect the invention or to ascertain whether it will answer its intended\n purpose.… If any commercial exploitation does occur, it must be merely incidental to\n the primary purpose of the experimentation to perfect the invention.”\n LaBounty Mfg. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d\n 1066, 1071, 22 USPQ2d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting Pennwalt Corp. v.\n Akzona Inc., 740 F.2d 1573, 1581, 222 USPQ 833, 838 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).\n “The experimental use exception…does not include market testing where the inventor is\n attempting to gauge consumer demand for his claimed invention. The purpose of such\n activities is commercial exploitation and not experimentation.” In re\n Smith, 714 F.2d 1127, 1134, 218 USPQ 976, 983 (Fed. Cir. 1983).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"If the use or sale was experimental, there is no bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). “A use or sale is experimental for purposes of [pre-AIA] section 102(b) if it represents a bona fide effort to perfect the invention or to ascertain whether it will answer its intended purpose.… If any commercial exploitation does occur, it must be merely incidental to the primary purpose of the experimentation to perfect the invention.” LaBounty Mfg. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 1071, 22 USPQ2d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting Pennwalt Corp. v. Akzona Inc., 740 F.2d 1573, 1581, 222 USPQ 833, 838 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). “The experimental use exception…does not include market testing where the inventor is attempting to gauge consumer demand for his claimed invention. The purpose of such activities is commercial exploitation and not experimentation.” In re Smith, 714 F.2d 1127, 1134, 218 USPQ 976, 983 (Fed. Cir. 1983).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204691","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_22cqpxh6"},{"id":"cs_tyaumlq2","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_tyaumlq2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"LaBounty Mfg. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d 1066 (1992)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"LaBounty Mfg. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n","canonical_citation":"LaBounty Mfg. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 22 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","all_citations":["958 F.2d 1066","22 USPQ2d 1025"],"decision_year":1992,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_xu5osgmu","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_xu5osgmu","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Pennwalt Corp. v. Akzona Inc., 740 F.2d 1573 (1984)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Pennwalt Corp. v. Akzona Inc.","canonical_citation":"Pennwalt Corp. v. Akzona Inc., 740 F.2d 1573, 222 USPQ 833 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","all_citations":["740 F.2d 1573","222 USPQ 833"],"decision_year":1984,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"se_nq4bgqe3","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_nq4bgqe3","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_e_1","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_e_1","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204712","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2133.03(e)(1)","chapter":"2100","depth":3,"title":"Commercial Exploitation","children_ids":["pb_eidsfc6h","pb_hetlzm57","pb_rceoxwkn","pb_2dqedfbl","pb_m23e772x","pb_q7juab5j","ls_ynl4rfzm","pb_ddraeoyc"],"revision_tag":"R-07.2022","parent_section_id":"se_22cqpxh6"},{"id":"pb_eidsfc6h","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_eidsfc6h","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    [Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to\n applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF)\n provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100\n (note). See MPEP §\n 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is\n subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP §\n 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject\n to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)\n for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of\n AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]

    ","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP § 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18d04_233","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_nq4bgqe3","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"pb_hetlzm57","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_hetlzm57","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    One policy of the on sale and public use provisions of\n 35\n U.S.C. 102 is the prevention of inventors from exploiting\n their inventions commercially more than 1 year prior to the filing of a patent\n application. Therefore, if applicant’s precritical date activity is a sale or\n offer for sale that is an attempt at market penetration, the activity may be cited\n as prior art. Thus, even if there is bona fide experimental\n activity, an inventor may not commercially exploit an invention more than 1 year\n prior to the effective filing date of a claimed invention. See In re\n Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 793, 204 USPQ 188, 194 (CCPA 1979).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"One policy of the on sale and public use provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102 is the prevention of inventors from exploiting their inventions commercially more than 1 year prior to the filing of a patent application. Therefore, if applicant’s precritical date activity is a sale or offer for sale that is an attempt at market penetration, the activity may be cited as prior art. Thus, even if there is bona fide experimental activity, an inventor may not commercially exploit an invention more than 1 year prior to the effective filing date of a claimed invention. See In re Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 793, 204 USPQ 188, 194 (CCPA 1979).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204718","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_nq4bgqe3"},{"id":"pb_rceoxwkn","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_rceoxwkn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"I. THE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY MUST LEGITIMATELY ADVANCE DEVELOPMENT OF THE\n INVENTION TOWARDS COMPLETION","rendered_text_plain":"I. THE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY MUST LEGITIMATELY ADVANCE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVENTION TOWARDS COMPLETION","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204712/b.0","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"I. THE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY MUST LEGITIMATELY ADVANCE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVENTION TOWARDS COMPLETION","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_nq4bgqe3"},{"id":"pb_2dqedfbl","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_2dqedfbl","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    As the degree of commercial exploitation in public use or sale\n activity increases, the burden on an applicant to establish clear and\n convincing evidence of experimental activity with respect to a public use\n becomes more difficult. Where the examiner has found a prima\n facie case of a sale or an offer to sell, this burden will rarely\n be met unless clear and convincing necessity for the experimentation is\n established by the applicant. See Sunoco Partners Mktg. &\n Terminals LP v. U.S. Venture, Inc., 32 F.4th 1161, 1171-72, 2022\n USPQ2d 417 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (performing testing at a third party’s location\n instead of at the buyer’s facility, along with the fact that the testing could\n have been performed before the offer to sell, showed that “[t]he need to\n perform this testing … cannot have been the primary purpose for the … sale”).\n This does not mean, of course, that there are no circumstances which would\n permit alleged experimental activity in an atmosphere of commercial\n exploitation. In certain circumstances, even a sale may be necessary to\n legitimately advance the experimental development of an invention if the\n primary purpose of the sale is experimental. In re Theis,\n 610 F.2d 786, 793, 204 USPQ 188, 194 (CCPA 1979); Robbins Co. v.\n Lawrence Mfg. Co., 482 F.2d 426, 433, 178 USPQ 577, 582 (9th Cir.\n 1973). However, careful scrutiny by the examiner of the objective factual\n circumstances surrounding such a sale is essential. See Ushakoff v.\n United States, 327 F.2d 669, 140 USPQ 341 (Ct.Cl. 1964);\n Cloud v. Standard Packaging Corp., 376 F.2d 384, 153 USPQ\n 317 (7th Cir. 1967). \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"As the degree of commercial exploitation in public use or sale activity increases, the burden on an applicant to establish clear and convincing evidence of experimental activity with respect to a public use becomes more difficult. Where the examiner has found a prima facie case of a sale or an offer to sell, this burden will rarely be met unless clear and convincing necessity for the experimentation is established by the applicant. See Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals LP v. U.S. Venture, Inc., 32 F.4th 1161, 1171-72, 2022 USPQ2d 417 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (performing testing at a third party’s location instead of at the buyer’s facility, along with the fact that the testing could have been performed before the offer to sell, showed that “[t]he need to perform this testing … cannot have been the primary purpose for the … sale”). This does not mean, of course, that there are no circumstances which would permit alleged experimental activity in an atmosphere of commercial exploitation. In certain circumstances, even a sale may be necessary to legitimately advance the experimental development of an invention if the primary purpose of the sale is experimental. In re Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 793, 204 USPQ 188, 194 (CCPA 1979); Robbins Co. v. Lawrence Mfg. Co., 482 F.2d 426, 433, 178 USPQ 577, 582 (9th Cir. 1973). However, careful scrutiny by the examiner of the objective factual circumstances surrounding such a sale is essential. See Ushakoff v. United States, 327 F.2d 669, 140 USPQ 341 (Ct.Cl. 1964); Cloud v. Standard Packaging Corp., 376 F.2d 384, 153 USPQ 317 (7th Cir. 1967).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204739","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_nq4bgqe3"},{"id":"cs_5dliyolh","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_5dliyolh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals LP v. U.S. Venture, Inc., 32 F.4th 1161 (2022)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals LP v. U.S. Venture, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals LP v. U.S. Venture, Inc., 32 F.4th 1161, 2022 USPQ2d 417 (Fed. Cir. 2022)","all_citations":["32 F.4th 1161","2022 USPQ2d 417"],"decision_year":2022,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_mhrn6vdz","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_mhrn6vdz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ushakoff v. United States, 327 F.2d 669 (1964)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Ushakoff v. United States","canonical_citation":"Ushakoff v. United States, 327 F.2d 669, 140 USPQ 341 (Ct. Cl. 1964)","all_citations":["327 F.2d 669","140 USPQ 341"],"decision_year":1964,"court":"Ct. Cl.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_ro4tuovs","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_ro4tuovs","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Cloud v. Standard Packaging Corp., 376 F.2d 384 (1967)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Cloud v. Standard Packaging Corp.","canonical_citation":"Cloud v. Standard Packaging Corp., 376 F.2d 384, 153 USPQ 317 (7th Cir. 1967)","all_citations":["376 F.2d 384","153 USPQ 317"],"decision_year":1967,"court":"7th Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_m23e772x","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_m23e772x","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"II. SIGNIFICANT FACTORS INDICATIVE OF “COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION”","rendered_text_plain":"II. SIGNIFICANT FACTORS INDICATIVE OF “COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION”","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204712/b.2","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"II. SIGNIFICANT FACTORS INDICATIVE OF “COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION”","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_nq4bgqe3"},{"id":"pb_q7juab5j","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_q7juab5j","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    As discussed in MPEP § 2133.03, a policy\n consideration in questions of sales activity is premature “commercial\n exploitation” of a “completed” or “ready for patenting” invention (see\n MPEP\n § 2133.03(c)). The extent of commercial activity\n which constitutes “on sale” status depends upon the circumstances of the\n activity, the basic indicator being the subjective intent of the inventor as\n manifested through objective evidence. The following activities should be used\n by the examiner as indicia of this subjective intent:\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"As discussed in MPEP § 2133.03, a policy consideration in questions of sales activity is premature “commercial exploitation” of a “completed” or “ready for patenting” invention (see MPEP § 2133.03(c)). The extent of commercial activity which constitutes “on sale” status depends upon the circumstances of the activity, the basic indicator being the subjective intent of the inventor as manifested through objective evidence. The following activities should be used by the examiner as indicia of this subjective intent:","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204764","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_nq4bgqe3"},{"id":"ls_ynl4rfzm","node_type":"list","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/ls_ynl4rfzm","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204780","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_style":"alpha_upper","nesting_depth":1,"host_section_id":"se_nq4bgqe3","parent_list_item_id":null,"item_ids":["li_k26uynlc","li_3bpdaowy","li_dk3gk6wt","li_4irdgsca","li_24egnnmk","li_xccmhz2x"]},{"id":"li_k26uynlc","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_k26uynlc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • (A) Preparation of various contemporaneous “commercial”\n documents, e.g., orders, invoices, receipts, delivery schedules, etc.;\n \n
    • ","rendered_text_plain":"(A) Preparation of various contemporaneous “commercial” documents, e.g., orders, invoices, receipts, delivery schedules, etc.;","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204780","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(A)","enumerator_ordinal":0,"parent_list_id":"ls_ynl4rfzm","child_ids":null},{"id":"li_3bpdaowy","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_3bpdaowy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • (B) Preparation of price lists (Akron\n BrassCo.v. Elkhart Brass Mfg. Co., 353 F.2d 704, 709, 147 USPQ\n 301, 305 (7th Cir. 1965)) and distribution of price quotations\n (Amphenol Corp.v. Gen'l Time Corp., 397 F.2d 431, 436, 158 USPQ 113,\n 117 (7th Cir. 1968)); \n
    • ","rendered_text_plain":"(B) Preparation of price lists (Akron BrassCo.v. Elkhart Brass Mfg. Co., 353 F.2d 704, 709, 147 USPQ 301, 305 (7th Cir. 1965)) and distribution of price quotations (Amphenol Corp.v. Gen'l Time Corp., 397 F.2d 431, 436, 158 USPQ 113, 117 (7th Cir. 1968));","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204784","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(B)","enumerator_ordinal":1,"parent_list_id":"ls_ynl4rfzm","child_ids":null},{"id":"cs_y6l54bv5","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_y6l54bv5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Cataphote Corp. v. DeSoto Chemical Coatings,Inc., 356 F.2d 24 (1966)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Cataphote Corp. v. DeSoto Chemical Coatings,Inc.","canonical_citation":"Cataphote Corp. v. DeSoto Chemical Coatings,Inc., 356 F.2d 24, 148 USPQ 527 (9th Cir. 1966)","all_citations":["356 F.2d 24","148 USPQ 527"],"decision_year":1966,"court":"9th Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_k2njymro","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_k2njymro","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Chicopee Mfg. Corp. v. Columbus Fiber Mills Co., 165 F. Supp. 307 (1958)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Chicopee Mfg. Corp. v. Columbus Fiber Mills Co.","canonical_citation":"Chicopee Mfg. Corp. v. Columbus Fiber Mills Co., 165 F. Supp. 307, 118 USPQ 53 (M.D. Ga. 1958)","all_citations":["165 F. Supp. 307","118 USPQ 53"],"decision_year":1958,"court":"M.D. Ga.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"li_dk3gk6wt","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_dk3gk6wt","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • (C) Display of samples to prospective customers\n (Cataphote Corp. v. DeSoto Chemical Coatings,Inc., 356 F.2d 24, 27, 148 USPQ 527, 529 (9th Cir.\n 1966) mod. on other grounds, 358 F.2d 732, 149 USPQ\n 159 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 832 (1966);\n Chicopee Mfg. Corp. v. Columbus Fiber Mills Co.,\n 165 F.Supp. 307, 323-325, 118 USPQ 53, 65-67 (M.D.Ga. 1958));\n
    • ","rendered_text_plain":"(C) Display of samples to prospective customers (Cataphote Corp. v. DeSoto Chemical Coatings,Inc., 356 F.2d 24, 27, 148 USPQ 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1966) mod. on other grounds, 358 F.2d 732, 149 USPQ 159 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 832 (1966); Chicopee Mfg. Corp. v. Columbus Fiber Mills Co., 165 F.Supp. 307, 323-325, 118 USPQ 53, 65-67 (M.D.Ga. 1958));","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204803","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(C)","enumerator_ordinal":2,"parent_list_id":"ls_ynl4rfzm","child_ids":null},{"id":"cs_pz6c6zvg","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_pz6c6zvg","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"General Elec. Co. v. United States, 206 USPQ 260 (1979)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"General Elec. Co. v. United States","canonical_citation":"General Elec. Co. v. United States, 206 USPQ 260 (Ct. Cl. 1979)","all_citations":["206 USPQ 260"],"decision_year":1979,"court":"Ct. Cl.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_a4zk65o7","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_a4zk65o7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Red Cross Mfg. v. Toro Sales Co., 525 F.2d 1135 (1975)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Red Cross Mfg. v. Toro Sales Co.","canonical_citation":"Red Cross Mfg. v. Toro Sales Co., 525 F.2d 1135, 188 USPQ 241 (7th Cir. 1975)","all_citations":["525 F.2d 1135","188 USPQ 241"],"decision_year":1975,"court":"7th Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_zlbmb44w","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_zlbmb44w","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Monogram Mfg. v. F. & H. Mfg., 144 F.2d 412 (1944)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Monogram Mfg. v. F. & H. Mfg.","canonical_citation":"Monogram Mfg. v. F. & H. Mfg., 144 F.2d 412, 62 USPQ 409 (9th Cir. 1944)","all_citations":["144 F.2d 412","62 USPQ 409"],"decision_year":1944,"court":"9th Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"li_4irdgsca","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_4irdgsca","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • (D) Demonstration of models or prototypes (General\n Elec. Co. v. United States, 206 USPQ 260, 266-67 (Ct. Cl.\n 1979); Red Cross Mfg. v. Toro Sales Co., 525 F.2d\n 1135, 1140, 188 USPQ 241, 244-45 (7th Cir. 1975); Philco\n Corp.v. Admiral Corp., 199 F. Supp. 797, 815-16, 131 USPQ\n 413, 429-30 (D. Del. 1961)), especially at trade conventions\n (Interroyal Corp.v. Simmons Co., 204 USPQ 562, 563-65 (S.D. N.Y.\n 1979)), and even though no orders are actually obtained\n (Monogram Mfg. v. F. & H. Mfg., 144 F.2d 412,\n 62 USPQ 409, 412 (9th Cir. 1944)); \n
    • ","rendered_text_plain":"(D) Demonstration of models or prototypes (General Elec. Co. v. United States, 206 USPQ 260, 266-67 (Ct. Cl. 1979); Red Cross Mfg. v. Toro Sales Co., 525 F.2d 1135, 1140, 188 USPQ 241, 244-45 (7th Cir. 1975); Philco Corp.v. Admiral Corp., 199 F. Supp. 797, 815-16, 131 USPQ 413, 429-30 (D. Del. 1961)), especially at trade conventions (Interroyal Corp.v. Simmons Co., 204 USPQ 562, 563-65 (S.D. N.Y. 1979)), and even though no orders are actually obtained (Monogram Mfg. v. F. & H. Mfg., 144 F.2d 412, 62 USPQ 409, 412 (9th Cir. 1944));","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204822","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(D)","enumerator_ordinal":3,"parent_list_id":"ls_ynl4rfzm","child_ids":null},{"id":"cs_hzsiewvf","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_hzsiewvf","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Josserand, 188 F.2d 486 (1951)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"In re Josserand","canonical_citation":"In re Josserand, 188 F.2d 486, 89 USPQ 371 (CCPA 1951)","all_citations":["188 F.2d 486","89 USPQ 371"],"decision_year":1951,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_waref2x4","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_waref2x4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Greenewalt v. Stanley, 54 F.2d 195 (1931)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Greenewalt v. Stanley","canonical_citation":"Greenewalt v. Stanley, 54 F.2d 195, 12 USPQ 122 (3d Cir. 1931)","all_citations":["54 F.2d 195","12 USPQ 122"],"decision_year":1931,"court":"3d Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"li_24egnnmk","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_24egnnmk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • (E) Use of an invention where an admission fee is charged\n (In re Josserand, 188 F.2d 486, 491, 89 USPQ 371,\n 376 (CCPA 1951); Greenewalt v. Stanley, 54 F.2d 195,\n 12 USPQ 122 (3d Cir. 1931)); and \n
    • ","rendered_text_plain":"(E) Use of an invention where an admission fee is charged (In re Josserand, 188 F.2d 486, 491, 89 USPQ 371, 376 (CCPA 1951); Greenewalt v. Stanley, 54 F.2d 195, 12 USPQ 122 (3d Cir. 1931)); and","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204847","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(E)","enumerator_ordinal":4,"parent_list_id":"ls_ynl4rfzm","child_ids":null},{"id":"cs_mnmfhi34","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_mnmfhi34","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Interroyal Corp. v. Simmons Co., 204 USPQ 562 (1979)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Interroyal Corp. v. Simmons Co.","canonical_citation":"Interroyal Corp. v. Simmons Co., 204 USPQ 562 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)","all_citations":["204 USPQ 562"],"decision_year":1979,"court":"S.D.N.Y.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_e4w56jdv","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_e4w56jdv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Akron Brass, Co. v. Elkhart Brass Mfg.,Inc., 353 F.2d 704 (1965)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Akron Brass, Co. v. Elkhart Brass Mfg.,Inc.","canonical_citation":"Akron Brass, Co. v. Elkhart Brass Mfg.,Inc., 353 F.2d 704, 147 USPQ 301 (7th Cir. 1965)","all_citations":["353 F.2d 704","147 USPQ 301"],"decision_year":1965,"court":"7th Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_2sh23fgh","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_2sh23fgh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Tucker Aluminum Prods. v. Grossman, 312 F.2d 393 (1963)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Tucker Aluminum Prods. v. Grossman","canonical_citation":"Tucker Aluminum Prods. v. Grossman, 312 F.2d 393, 136 USPQ 244 (9th Cir. 1963)","all_citations":["312 F.2d 393","136 USPQ 244"],"decision_year":1963,"court":"9th Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"li_xccmhz2x","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_xccmhz2x","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"
  • (F) Advertising in publicity releases, brochures, and\n various periodicals (In re Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 792\n n.6, 204 USPQ 188, 193 n. 6 (CCPA 1979); Interroyal Corp. v.\n Simmons Co., 204 USPQ 562, 564-66 (S.D.N.Y. 1979);\n Akron Brass, Co. v. Elkhart Brass Mfg.,Inc., 353 F.2d 704, 709, 147 USPQ 301, 305 (7th Cir.\n 1965); Tucker Aluminum Prods. v. Grossman, 312 F.2d\n 393, 394, 136 USPQ 244, 245 (9th Cir. 1963)). \n
    • ","rendered_text_plain":"(F) Advertising in publicity releases, brochures, and various periodicals (In re Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 792 n.6, 204 USPQ 188, 193 n. 6 (CCPA 1979); Interroyal Corp. v. Simmons Co., 204 USPQ 562, 564-66 (S.D.N.Y. 1979); Akron Brass, Co. v. Elkhart Brass Mfg.,Inc., 353 F.2d 704, 709, 147 USPQ 301, 305 (7th Cir. 1965); Tucker Aluminum Prods. v. Grossman, 312 F.2d 393, 394, 136 USPQ 244, 245 (9th Cir. 1963)).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204857","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"enumerator_label":"(F)","enumerator_ordinal":5,"parent_list_id":"ls_ynl4rfzm","child_ids":null},{"id":"pb_ddraeoyc","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ddraeoyc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    See MPEP § 2133.03(e)(4) for\n factors indicative of an experimental purpose.\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"See MPEP § 2133.03(e)(4) for factors indicative of an experimental purpose.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204878","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_nq4bgqe3"},{"id":"se_4b2mj46u","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_4b2mj46u","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_e_2","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_e_2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204884","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2133.03(e)(2)","chapter":"2100","depth":3,"title":"Intent","children_ids":["pb_ecrxq3fo","pb_nmwg2r3o"],"revision_tag":"R-07.2022","parent_section_id":"se_22cqpxh6"},{"id":"pb_ecrxq3fo","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ecrxq3fo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    [Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to\n applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF)\n provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100\n (note). See MPEP §\n 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is\n subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP §\n 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject\n to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)\n for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of\n AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]

    ","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP § 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18d58_1b2","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_4b2mj46u","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"pb_nmwg2r3o","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_nmwg2r3o","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    “When sales are made in an ordinary commercial environment and\n the goods are placed outside the inventor’s control, an inventor’s secretly held\n subjective intent to ‘experiment,’ even if true, is unavailing without objective\n evidence to support the contention. Under such circumstances, the customer at a\n minimum must be made aware of the experimentation.” LaBounty Mfg., Inc.\n v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 1072, 22 USPQ2d\n 1025, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting Harrington Mfg. Co. v. Powell Mfg.\n Co., 815 F.2d 1478, 1480 n.3, 2 USPQ2d 1364, 1366 n.3 (Fed. Cir.\n 1986); Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals LP v. U.S. Venture,\n Inc., 32 F.4th 1161, 1171-72, 2022 USPQ2d 417 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (The\n Federal Circuit relied on the objective evidence of the contract over the\n inventors’ testimony that their intent for the agreement was experimental);\n Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Labs., Inc., 984\n F.2d 1182, 25 USPQ2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Paragon sold the inventive units to\n the trade as completed devices without any disclosure to either doctors or\n patients of their involvement in alleged testing. Evidence of the inventor’s\n secretly held belief that the units were not durable and may not be satisfactory\n for consumers was not sufficient, alone, to avoid a statutory bar.). \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"“When sales are made in an ordinary commercial environment and the goods are placed outside the inventor’s control, an inventor’s secretly held subjective intent to ‘experiment,’ even if true, is unavailing without objective evidence to support the contention. Under such circumstances, the customer at a minimum must be made aware of the experimentation.” LaBounty Mfg., Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 1072, 22 USPQ2d 1025, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting Harrington Mfg. Co. v. Powell Mfg. Co., 815 F.2d 1478, 1480 n.3, 2 USPQ2d 1364, 1366 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals LP v. U.S. Venture, Inc., 32 F.4th 1161, 1171-72, 2022 USPQ2d 417 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (The Federal Circuit relied on the objective evidence of the contract over the inventors’ testimony that their intent for the agreement was experimental); Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Labs., Inc., 984 F.2d 1182, 25 USPQ2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Paragon sold the inventive units to the trade as completed devices without any disclosure to either doctors or patients of their involvement in alleged testing. Evidence of the inventor’s secretly held belief that the units were not durable and may not be satisfactory for consumers was not sufficient, alone, to avoid a statutory bar.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204888","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_4b2mj46u"},{"id":"cs_mhtdvsy5","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_mhtdvsy5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"LaBounty Mfg., Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d 1066 (1992)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"LaBounty Mfg., Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n","canonical_citation":"LaBounty Mfg., Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 22 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","all_citations":["958 F.2d 1066","22 USPQ2d 1025"],"decision_year":1992,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_ob2ewqby","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_ob2ewqby","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Harrington Mfg. Co. v. Powell Mfg. Co., 815 F.2d 1478 (1986)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Harrington Mfg. Co. v. Powell Mfg. Co.","canonical_citation":"Harrington Mfg. Co. v. Powell Mfg. Co., 815 F.2d 1478, 2 USPQ2d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","all_citations":["815 F.2d 1478","2 USPQ2d 1364"],"decision_year":1986,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_a33nnfgx","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_a33nnfgx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Labs., Inc., 984 F.2d 1182 (1993)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Labs., Inc.","canonical_citation":"Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Labs., Inc., 984 F.2d 1182, 25 USPQ2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993)","all_citations":["984 F.2d 1182","25 USPQ2d 1561"],"decision_year":1993,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"se_p6j3pjgw","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_p6j3pjgw","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_e_3","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_e_3","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204900","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2133.03(e)(3)","chapter":"2100","depth":3,"title":"“Completeness” of the Invention","children_ids":["pb_oddtjztc","pb_ratn3735","pb_eczz4hip","pb_eutsno2g","pb_flnwvp2w","pb_qmirhuir"],"revision_tag":"R-07.2022","parent_section_id":"se_22cqpxh6"},{"id":"pb_oddtjztc","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_oddtjztc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    [Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to\n applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF)\n provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100\n (note). See MPEP §\n 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is\n subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP §\n 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject\n to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)\n for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of\n AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]

    ","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP § 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18d77_1b1","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_p6j3pjgw","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"pb_ratn3735","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ratn3735","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"I. EXPERIMENTAL USE ENDS WHEN THE INVENTION IS ACTUALLY REDUCED TO\n PRACTICE","rendered_text_plain":"I. EXPERIMENTAL USE ENDS WHEN THE INVENTION IS ACTUALLY REDUCED TO PRACTICE","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204900/b.0","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"I. EXPERIMENTAL USE ENDS WHEN THE INVENTION IS ACTUALLY REDUCED TO PRACTICE","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_p6j3pjgw"},{"id":"pb_eczz4hip","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_eczz4hip","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Experimental use “means perfecting or completing an invention\n to the point of determining that it will work for its intended purpose.”\n Therefore, experimental use “ends with an actual reduction to practice.”\n RCA Corp.v.Data Gen. Corp., 887 F.2d 1056, 1061, 12 USPQ2d 1449, 1453\n (Fed. Cir. 1989). If the examiner concludes from the evidence of record that\n the inventor was satisfied that an invention was in fact “complete,” awaiting\n approval by the inventor from an organization such as Underwriters’\n Laboratories will not normally overcome this conclusion. Interroyal\n Corp. v. Simmons Co., 204 USPQ 562, 566 (S.D.N.Y. 1979);\n Skil Corp. v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co., 358 F. Supp.\n 1257, 1261, 178 USPQ 562, 565 (N.D.Ill. 1973), aff’d. in part, rev’d\n in part sub nom.Skil Corp. v. Lucerne Products Inc., 503 F.2d 745, 183 USPQ\n 396, 399 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 974, 185\n USPQ 65 (1975). See MPEP § 2133.03(c) for more\n information of what constitutes a “complete” invention.\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Experimental use “means perfecting or completing an invention to the point of determining that it will work for its intended purpose.” Therefore, experimental use “ends with an actual reduction to practice.” RCA Corp.v.Data Gen. Corp., 887 F.2d 1056, 1061, 12 USPQ2d 1449, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1989). If the examiner concludes from the evidence of record that the inventor was satisfied that an invention was in fact “complete,” awaiting approval by the inventor from an organization such as Underwriters’ Laboratories will not normally overcome this conclusion. Interroyal Corp. v. Simmons Co., 204 USPQ 562, 566 (S.D.N.Y. 1979); Skil Corp. v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co., 358 F. Supp. 1257, 1261, 178 USPQ 562, 565 (N.D.Ill. 1973), aff’d. in part, rev’d in part sub nom.Skil Corp. v. Lucerne Products Inc., 503 F.2d 745, 183 USPQ 396, 399 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 974, 185 USPQ 65 (1975). See MPEP § 2133.03(c) for more information of what constitutes a “complete” invention.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204915","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_p6j3pjgw"},{"id":"cs_n52zbw6z","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_n52zbw6z","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Skil Corp. v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co., 358 F. Supp. 1257 (1973)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Skil Corp. v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co.","canonical_citation":"Skil Corp. v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co., 358 F. Supp. 1257, 178 USPQ 562 (N.D. Ill. 1973)","all_citations":["358 F. Supp. 1257","178 USPQ 562"],"decision_year":1973,"court":"N.D. Ill.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_3ftdoudq","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_3ftdoudq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Skil Corp. v. Lucerne Products Inc., 503 F.2d 745 (1974)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Skil Corp. v. Lucerne Products Inc.","canonical_citation":"Skil Corp. v. Lucerne Products Inc., 503 F.2d 745, 183 USPQ 396 (7th Cir. 1974)","all_citations":["503 F.2d 745","183 USPQ 396"],"decision_year":1974,"court":"7th Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_eutsno2g","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_eutsno2g","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    The fact that alleged experimental activity does not lead to\n specific modifications or refinements of an invention is evidence, although not\n conclusive evidence, that such activity is not within the realm permitted by\n the statute. This is especially the case where the evidence of record clearly\n demonstrates to the examiner that an invention was considered “complete” by an\n inventor at the time of the activity. Nevertheless, any modifications or\n refinements which did result from such experimental activity must at least be a\n feature of the claimed invention to be of any probative value. In re\n Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 793, 204 USPQ 188, 194 (CCPA 1979).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"The fact that alleged experimental activity does not lead to specific modifications or refinements of an invention is evidence, although not conclusive evidence, that such activity is not within the realm permitted by the statute. This is especially the case where the evidence of record clearly demonstrates to the examiner that an invention was considered “complete” by an inventor at the time of the activity. Nevertheless, any modifications or refinements which did result from such experimental activity must at least be a feature of the claimed invention to be of any probative value. In re Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 793, 204 USPQ 188, 194 (CCPA 1979).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204947","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_p6j3pjgw"},{"id":"pb_flnwvp2w","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_flnwvp2w","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"II. DISPOSAL OF PROTOTYPES","rendered_text_plain":"II. DISPOSAL OF PROTOTYPES","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204900/b.2","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"II. DISPOSAL OF PROTOTYPES","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_p6j3pjgw"},{"id":"pb_qmirhuir","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_qmirhuir","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Where a prototype of an invention has been disposed of by an\n inventor before the critical date, inquiry by the examiner should focus upon\n the intent of the inventor and the reasonableness of the disposal under all\n circumstances. The fact that an otherwise reasonable disposal of a prototype\n involves incidental income is not necessarily fatal. In re\n Dybel, 524 F.2d 1393, 1399, n.5, 187 USPQ 593, 597 n.5 (CCPA\n 1975). However, if a prototype is considered “complete” by an inventor and all\n experimentation on the underlying invention has ceased, unrestricted disposal\n of the prototype constitutes a bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).\n In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 113 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1957);\n contra,Watson v.Allen, 254 F.2d 342, 117 USPQ 68 (D.C. Cir. 1958).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Where a prototype of an invention has been disposed of by an inventor before the critical date, inquiry by the examiner should focus upon the intent of the inventor and the reasonableness of the disposal under all circumstances. The fact that an otherwise reasonable disposal of a prototype involves incidental income is not necessarily fatal. In re Dybel, 524 F.2d 1393, 1399, n.5, 187 USPQ 593, 597 n.5 (CCPA 1975). However, if a prototype is considered “complete” by an inventor and all experimentation on the underlying invention has ceased, unrestricted disposal of the prototype constitutes a bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 113 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1957); contra,Watson v.Allen, 254 F.2d 342, 117 USPQ 68 (D.C. Cir. 1958).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204960","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_p6j3pjgw"},{"id":"cs_crwlo6xu","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_crwlo6xu","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Watson v. Allen, 254 F.2d 342 (1958)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Watson v. Allen","canonical_citation":"Watson v. Allen, 254 F.2d 342, 117 USPQ 68 (D.C. Cir. 1958)","all_citations":["254 F.2d 342","117 USPQ 68"],"decision_year":1958,"court":"D.C. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"se_2jz4qpt7","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_2jz4qpt7","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_e_4","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_e_4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204981","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2133.03(e)(4)","chapter":"2100","depth":3,"title":"Factors Indicative of an Experimental Purpose","children_ids":["pb_yg7qyeap","pb_i2d4zpwo","pb_l2pmvnoo","pb_3sycxd2q"],"revision_tag":"R-07.2022","parent_section_id":"se_22cqpxh6"},{"id":"pb_yg7qyeap","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_yg7qyeap","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    [Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to\n applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF)\n provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100\n (note). See MPEP §\n 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is\n subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP §\n 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject\n to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)\n for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of\n AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]

    ","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP § 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18db1_35a","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_2jz4qpt7","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"pb_i2d4zpwo","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_i2d4zpwo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    The courts have considered a number of factors in determining\n whether a claimed invention was the subject of a commercial offer for sale\n primarily for purposes of experimentation. “These factors include: (1) the\n necessity for public testing, (2) the amount of control over the experiment\n retained by the inventor, (3) the nature of the invention, (4) the length of the\n test period, (5) whether payment was made, (6) whether there was a secrecy\n obligation, (7) whether records of the experiment were kept, (8) who conducted the\n experiment, ... (9) the degree of commercial exploitation during testing[,] ...\n (10) whether the invention reasonably requires evaluation under actual conditions\n of use, (11) whether testing was systematically performed, (12) whether the\n inventor continually monitored the invention during testing, and (13) the nature\n of contacts made with potential customers.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell\n Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1353, 63 USPQ2d 1769, 1780 (Fed. Cir.\n 2002) (quoting EZ Dock v. Schafer Sys., Inc., 276 F.3d 1347,\n 1357, 61 USPQ2d 1289, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2002)) (Linn, J., concurring). Another\n critical attribute of experimentation is the “customer’s awareness of the\n purported testing in the context of a sale.” Electromotive Div. of Gen.\n Motors Corp. v. Transportation Sys. Div. of Gen. Elec. Co., 417 F.3d\n 1203, 1241, 75 USPQ2d 1650, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 2005).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"The courts have considered a number of factors in determining whether a claimed invention was the subject of a commercial offer for sale primarily for purposes of experimentation. “These factors include: (1) the necessity for public testing, (2) the amount of control over the experiment retained by the inventor, (3) the nature of the invention, (4) the length of the test period, (5) whether payment was made, (6) whether there was a secrecy obligation, (7) whether records of the experiment were kept, (8) who conducted the experiment, ... (9) the degree of commercial exploitation during testing[,] ... (10) whether the invention reasonably requires evaluation under actual conditions of use, (11) whether testing was systematically performed, (12) whether the inventor continually monitored the invention during testing, and (13) the nature of contacts made with potential customers.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1353, 63 USPQ2d 1769, 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting EZ Dock v. Schafer Sys., Inc., 276 F.3d 1347, 1357, 61 USPQ2d 1289, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2002)) (Linn, J., concurring). Another critical attribute of experimentation is the “customer’s awareness of the purported testing in the context of a sale.” Electromotive Div. of Gen. Motors Corp. v. Transportation Sys. Div. of Gen. Elec. Co., 417 F.3d 1203, 1241, 75 USPQ2d 1650, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 2005).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204989","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_2jz4qpt7"},{"id":"cs_taupzta2","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_taupzta2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Electromotive Div. of Gen. Motors Corp. v. Transportation Sys. Div. of Gen. Elec. Co., 417 F.3d 1203 (2005)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Electromotive Div. of Gen. Motors Corp. v. Transportation Sys. Div. of Gen. Elec. Co.","canonical_citation":"Electromotive Div. of Gen. Motors Corp. v. Transportation Sys. Div. of Gen. Elec. Co., 417 F.3d 1203, 75 USPQ2d 1650 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","all_citations":["417 F.3d 1203","75 USPQ2d 1650"],"decision_year":2005,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_l2pmvnoo","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_l2pmvnoo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Once alleged experimental activity is advanced by an applicant to\n explain a prima facie case of unpatentability, the examiner\n must determine whether the scope and length of the activity were reasonable in\n terms of the experimental purpose intended by the applicant and the nature of the\n subject matter involved. No one of, or particular combination of, factors is\n necessarily determinative of this purpose.\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Once alleged experimental activity is advanced by an applicant to explain a prima facie case of unpatentability, the examiner must determine whether the scope and length of the activity were reasonable in terms of the experimental purpose intended by the applicant and the nature of the subject matter involved. No one of, or particular combination of, factors is necessarily determinative of this purpose.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205004","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_2jz4qpt7"},{"id":"pb_3sycxd2q","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_3sycxd2q","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    See MPEP § 2133.03(e)(1) for factors\n indicative of commercial exploitation.\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"See MPEP § 2133.03(e)(1) for factors indicative of commercial exploitation.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205013","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_2jz4qpt7"},{"id":"se_7h5vbxzg","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_7h5vbxzg","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_e_5","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_e_5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205019","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2133.03(e)(5)","chapter":"2100","depth":3,"title":"Experimentation and Degree of Supervision and Control","children_ids":["pb_j6bt3pr6","pb_tus4fvvz","pb_jskvcnuq"],"revision_tag":"R-07.2022","parent_section_id":"se_22cqpxh6"},{"id":"pb_j6bt3pr6","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_j6bt3pr6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    [Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to\n applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF)\n provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100\n (note). See MPEP §\n 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is\n subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP §\n 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject\n to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)\n for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of\n AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]

    ","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP § 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18dc9_26d","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_7h5vbxzg","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"pb_tus4fvvz","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_tus4fvvz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"THE INVENTOR MUST MAINTAIN SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE INVENTION DURING\n TESTING BY THIRD PARTIES","rendered_text_plain":"THE INVENTOR MUST MAINTAIN SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE INVENTION DURING TESTING BY THIRD PARTIES","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205019/b.0","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"THE INVENTOR MUST MAINTAIN SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE INVENTION DURING TESTING BY THIRD PARTIES","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_7h5vbxzg"},{"id":"pb_jskvcnuq","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_jskvcnuq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    The significant determinative factors in questions of\n experimental purpose are the extent of supervision and control maintained by an\n inventor over an invention during an alleged period of experimentation , and\n the customer’s awareness of the experimentation. Electromotive Div. of\n Gen. Motors Corp. v. Transportation Sys. Div. of Gen. Elec. Co.,\n 417 F.3d 1203, 1214, 75 USPQ2d 1650, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(“control and\n customer awareness ordinarily must be proven if experimentation is to be\n found”). Once a period of experimental activity has ended and supervision and\n control has been relinquished by an inventor without any restraints on\n subsequent use of an invention, an unrestricted subsequent use of the invention\n is a pre-AIA\n 35 U.S.C. 102(b) bar. In re Blaisdell,\n 242 F.2d 779, 784, 113 USPQ 289, 293 (CCPA 1957). \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"The significant determinative factors in questions of experimental purpose are the extent of supervision and control maintained by an inventor over an invention during an alleged period of experimentation , and the customer’s awareness of the experimentation. Electromotive Div. of Gen. Motors Corp. v. Transportation Sys. Div. of Gen. Elec. Co., 417 F.3d 1203, 1214, 75 USPQ2d 1650, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(“control and customer awareness ordinarily must be proven if experimentation is to be found”). Once a period of experimental activity has ended and supervision and control has been relinquished by an inventor without any restraints on subsequent use of an invention, an unrestricted subsequent use of the invention is a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) bar. In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 784, 113 USPQ 289, 293 (CCPA 1957).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205031","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_7h5vbxzg"},{"id":"se_fh3yy2i4","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_fh3yy2i4","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_e_6","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_e_6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205061","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2133.03(e)(6)","chapter":"2100","depth":3,"title":"Permitted Experimental Activity and Testing","children_ids":["pb_4lzsc2wr","pb_7ad6hj63","pb_2wx7u2i6","pb_dl7ogqdz","pb_3lwi45od","pb_bqkoazql","pb_f4j2fyra"],"revision_tag":"R-07.2022","parent_section_id":"se_22cqpxh6"},{"id":"pb_4lzsc2wr","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_4lzsc2wr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    [Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to\n applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF)\n provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100\n (note). See MPEP §\n 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is\n subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP §\n 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject\n to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)\n for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of\n AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]

    ","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note). See MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP § 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18e0c_304","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_fh3yy2i4","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"pb_7ad6hj63","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_7ad6hj63","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"I. DEVELOPMENTAL TESTING IS PERMITTED","rendered_text_plain":"I. DEVELOPMENTAL TESTING IS PERMITTED","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205061/b.0","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"I. DEVELOPMENTAL TESTING IS PERMITTED","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_fh3yy2i4"},{"id":"pb_2wx7u2i6","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_2wx7u2i6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Testing of an invention in the normal context of its\n technological development is generally within the realm of permitted\n experimental activity. Likewise, experimentation to determine utility, as that\n term is applied in 35 U.S.C. 101, may also\n constitute permissible activity. See General Motors Corp. v. Bendix\n Aviation Corp., 123 F. Supp. 506, 521, 102 USPQ 58, 69 (N.D.Ind.\n 1954). For example, where an invention relates to a chemical composition with\n no known utility, i.e., a patent application for the composition could not be\n filed (35\n U.S.C. 101; 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or\n pre-AIA 35\n U.S.C. 112, first paragraph), continued testing to find\n utility would likely be permissible, absent a sale of the composition or other\n evidence of commercial exploitation. \n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Testing of an invention in the normal context of its technological development is generally within the realm of permitted experimental activity. Likewise, experimentation to determine utility, as that term is applied in 35 U.S.C. 101, may also constitute permissible activity. See General Motors Corp. v. Bendix Aviation Corp., 123 F. Supp. 506, 521, 102 USPQ 58, 69 (N.D.Ind. 1954). For example, where an invention relates to a chemical composition with no known utility, i.e., a patent application for the composition could not be filed (35 U.S.C. 101; 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph), continued testing to find utility would likely be permissible, absent a sale of the composition or other evidence of commercial exploitation.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205076","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_fh3yy2i4"},{"id":"cs_lx7eq42m","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_lx7eq42m","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"General Motors Corp. v. Bendix Aviation Corp., 123 F. Supp. 506 (1954)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"General Motors Corp. v. Bendix Aviation Corp.","canonical_citation":"General Motors Corp. v. Bendix Aviation Corp., 123 F. Supp. 506, 102 USPQ 58 (N.D. Ind. 1954)","all_citations":["123 F. Supp. 506","102 USPQ 58"],"decision_year":1954,"court":"N.D. Ind.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"st_keb5vdhh","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_keb5vdhh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"101","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 101"},{"id":"pb_dl7ogqdz","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_dl7ogqdz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"II. MARKET TESTING IS NOT PERMITTED","rendered_text_plain":"II. MARKET TESTING IS NOT PERMITTED","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205061/b.2","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"II. MARKET TESTING IS NOT PERMITTED","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_fh3yy2i4"},{"id":"pb_3lwi45od","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_3lwi45od","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Experimentation to determine product acceptance, i.e., market\n testing, is typical of a trader’s and not an inventor’s experiment and is thus\n not within the area of permitted experimental activity. Smith &\n Davis Mfg. Co. v. Mellon, 58 F. 705, 707 (8th Cir. 1893).\n Likewise, testing of an invention for the benefit of appeasing a customer, or\n to conduct “minor ‘tune up’ procedures not requiring an inventor’s skills, but\n rather the skills of a competent technician,” are also not within the scope of\n experimentation. In re Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 793, 204 USPQ\n 188, 193-94 (CCPA 1979).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Experimentation to determine product acceptance, i.e., market testing, is typical of a trader’s and not an inventor’s experiment and is thus not within the area of permitted experimental activity. Smith & Davis Mfg. Co. v. Mellon, 58 F. 705, 707 (8th Cir. 1893). Likewise, testing of an invention for the benefit of appeasing a customer, or to conduct “minor ‘tune up’ procedures not requiring an inventor’s skills, but rather the skills of a competent technician,” are also not within the scope of experimentation. In re Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 793, 204 USPQ 188, 193-94 (CCPA 1979).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205102","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_fh3yy2i4"},{"id":"pb_bqkoazql","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_bqkoazql","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"III. EXPERIMENTAL ACTIVITY IN THE CONTEXT OF DESIGN APPLICATIONS","rendered_text_plain":"III. EXPERIMENTAL ACTIVITY IN THE CONTEXT OF DESIGN APPLICATIONS","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205061/b.4","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"III. EXPERIMENTAL ACTIVITY IN THE CONTEXT OF DESIGN APPLICATIONS","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_fh3yy2i4"},{"id":"pb_f4j2fyra","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_f4j2fyra","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    The public use of an ornamental design which is directed\n toward generating consumer interest in the aesthetics of the design is not an\n experimental use. In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581, 8 USPQ2d 2030\n (Fed. Cir. 1988) (display of a wrought iron table at a trade show held to be\n public use). However, “experimentation directed to functional features of a\n product also containing an ornamental design may negate what otherwise would be\n considered a public use.” Tone Brothers, Inc.v.Sysco Corp., 28 F.3d 1192, 1196, 31 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed.\n Cir. 1994) (A study wherein students evaluated the effect of the functional\n features of a spice container design may be considered an experimental\n use.).\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"The public use of an ornamental design which is directed toward generating consumer interest in the aesthetics of the design is not an experimental use. In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581, 8 USPQ2d 2030 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (display of a wrought iron table at a trade show held to be public use). However, “experimentation directed to functional features of a product also containing an ornamental design may negate what otherwise would be considered a public use.” Tone Brothers, Inc.v.Sysco Corp., 28 F.3d 1192, 1196, 31 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (A study wherein students evaluated the effect of the functional features of a spice container design may be considered an experimental use.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205118","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_fh3yy2i4"},{"id":"cs_whqddplc","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_whqddplc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581 (1988)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"In re Mann","canonical_citation":"In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581, 8 USPQ2d 2030 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","all_citations":["861 F.2d 1581","8 USPQ2d 2030"],"decision_year":1988,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"se_3rfca2vp","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_3rfca2vp","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_e_7","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2133_03_e_7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205133","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"section_number":"2133.03(e)(7)","chapter":"2100","depth":3,"title":"Activity of an Independent Third Party Inventor","children_ids":["pb_xhvthbo7","pb_z6nvkw22","pb_zt45htvb"],"revision_tag":"R-07.2022","parent_section_id":"se_22cqpxh6"},{"id":"pb_xhvthbo7","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_xhvthbo7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    [Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to\n applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF)\n provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100\n (note) . See MPEP §\n 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is\n subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP §\n 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject\n to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)\n for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of\n AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]

    ","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section may be applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) . See MPEP § 2159 et seq. to determine whether an application is subject to examination under the FITF provisions, and MPEP § 2150 et seq. for examination of applications subject to those provisions. See MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e) for a detailed discussion of the public use and on sale provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18e21_ce","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_3rfca2vp","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"pb_z6nvkw22","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_z6nvkw22","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"EXPERIMENTAL USE IS PERSONAL TO AN INVENTOR","rendered_text_plain":"EXPERIMENTAL USE IS PERSONAL TO AN INVENTOR","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205133/b.0","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_text":"EXPERIMENTAL USE IS PERSONAL TO AN INVENTOR","heading_level":2,"host_section_id":"se_3rfca2vp"},{"id":"pb_zt45htvb","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_zt45htvb","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    Public use and sales activity may be prior art even if by a\n party other than an inventor. Where an inventor presents evidence of\n experimental activity by such other party, the evidence will not overcome the\n prima facie case of unpatentability based upon the\n activity of such party unless the activity was under the supervision and\n control of the inventor. In re Hamilton, 882 F.2d 1576,\n 1581, 111 USPQ2d 1890, 1894 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“The experimental use doctrine\n operates in the inventor's favor to allow the inventor to\n refine his invention or to assess its value relative to the time and expense of\n prosecuting a patent application. If it is not the inventor or someone under\n his control or ‘surveillance’ who does these things, there appears to us no\n reason why he should be entitled to rely upon them to avoid the statute.”)\n (citing Magnetics, Inc. v. Arnold Engineering Co., 438 F.2d\n 72, 74, 168 USPQ 392, 394 (7th Cir. 1971)). In other words, the experimental\n use activity exception is personal to the inventor.\n

    ","rendered_text_plain":"Public use and sales activity may be prior art even if by a party other than an inventor. Where an inventor presents evidence of experimental activity by such other party, the evidence will not overcome the prima facie case of unpatentability based upon the activity of such party unless the activity was under the supervision and control of the inventor. In re Hamilton, 882 F.2d 1576, 1581, 111 USPQ2d 1890, 1894 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“The experimental use doctrine operates in the inventor's favor to allow the inventor to refine his invention or to assess its value relative to the time and expense of prosecuting a patent application. If it is not the inventor or someone under his control or ‘surveillance’ who does these things, there appears to us no reason why he should be entitled to rely upon them to avoid the statute.”) (citing Magnetics, Inc. v. Arnold Engineering Co., 438 F.2d 72, 74, 168 USPQ 392, 394 (7th Cir. 1971)). In other words, the experimental use activity exception is personal to the inventor.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205141","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_3rfca2vp"},{"id":"cs_74vw57oh","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_74vw57oh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Hamilton, 882 F.2d 1576 (1989)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"In re Hamilton","canonical_citation":"In re Hamilton, 882 F.2d 1576, 111 USPQ2d 1890 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","all_citations":["882 F.2d 1576","111 USPQ2d 1890"],"decision_year":1989,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_4yvbwqvz","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_4yvbwqvz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Magnetics, Inc. v. Arnold Engineering Co., 438 F.2d 72 (1971)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"short_name":"Magnetics, Inc. v. Arnold Engineering Co.","canonical_citation":"Magnetics, Inc. v. Arnold Engineering Co., 438 F.2d 72, 168 USPQ 392 (7th Cir. 1971)","all_citations":["438 F.2d 72","168 USPQ 392"],"decision_year":1971,"court":"7th Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"pb_6hm3jrjz","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_6hm3jrjz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"

    [top]

    ","rendered_text_plain":"[top]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203671/p.0","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_rgreyub5"}],"edges":[{"id":"e_dfjyepvf","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_meyptejd","target_id":"st_qlhihx44","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 100","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":167,"end":180}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18b7d_7a","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_dmzn7cyx","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_meyptejd","target_id":"st_chovvrcv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":444,"end":460}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18b7d_7a","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_3jehtqql","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_meyptejd","target_id":"se_a7ggpn7r","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2159","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18b7d_7a","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_poniljto","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_meyptejd","target_id":"se_vqgrrn3n","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18b7d_7a","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_fdqmbdwk","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_meyptejd","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_18e23_3ce"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18b7d_7a","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_bwun2dvi","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zy7rjj6b","target_id":"cs_2t5d55b3","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Olah, 131 USPQ 41 (BPAI 1960)","source_offset":{"start":435,"end":448}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203695","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_otc44njv","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_zy7rjj6b","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":181,"end":197}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203695","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ceqre5nw","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_zy7rjj6b","target_id":"st_cmsu6wxg","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 21(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":482,"end":497}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203695","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_5a5cvvcr","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_zy7rjj6b","target_id":"st_cmsu6wxg","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 21(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":517,"end":532}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203695","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_kacoddgz","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_zy7rjj6b","target_id":"st_vt6bl6ys","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.6(a)(2)","specificity":"paragraph","source_offset":{"start":579,"end":595}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203695","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_gm4gdixd","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_zy7rjj6b","target_id":"st_zjce26aw","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.10","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":600,"end":611}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203695","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_qqobeftg","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_zy7rjj6b","target_id":"st_ujo54cff","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.6(a)(4)","specificity":"paragraph","source_offset":{"start":725,"end":741}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203695","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_c7isodos","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_a22pb6dh","target_id":"cs_v2dbagsv","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982)","source_offset":{"start":141,"end":151},"pincite":"454"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203714","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_7ipzxjg7","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_a22pb6dh","target_id":"cs_nvxziasq","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Foster, 343 F.2d 980, 145 USPQ 166 (CCPA 1966)","source_offset":{"start":766,"end":778},"pincite":"145"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203714","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_tujhfets","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_a22pb6dh","target_id":"se_kswaud2i","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2139.01","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2c184_12530_2b6"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203714","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_6agmg35e","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_k2cuyqce","target_id":"st_qlhihx44","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 100","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":167,"end":180}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18bbc_72","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_r67kswun","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_k2cuyqce","target_id":"st_chovvrcv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":444,"end":460}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18bbc_72","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_kuee7emt","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_k2cuyqce","target_id":"se_a7ggpn7r","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2159","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18bbc_72","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_uc5pe53x","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_k2cuyqce","target_id":"se_vqgrrn3n","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18bbc_72","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_cur36ilu","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_k2cuyqce","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_18e23_3ce"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18bbc_72","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_cwixwv2b","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ggzvz364","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":244,"end":257}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203730","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_a4gdobfl","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_ggzvz364","target_id":"se_kswaud2i","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2139.01","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2c184_12530_2b6"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203730","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_cicmz4no","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_rxzmofbc","target_id":"cs_gsvmfbzk","properties":{"citation_text":"Paperless Accounting v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659, 231 USPQ 649 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","source_offset":{"start":450,"end":503},"pincite":"665"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2e6aa_1e0ed_115","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_queetxeh","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_rxzmofbc","target_id":"st_35hzro2v","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 112","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":132,"end":145}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2e6aa_1e0ed_115","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_k6cbhvs3","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_rxzmofbc","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":432,"end":448}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2e6aa_1e0ed_115","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_4y7kob4m","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_kjk5bcaz","target_id":"cs_y3edb2fs","properties":{"citation_text":"Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 104 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2012)","source_offset":{"start":501,"end":543},"pincite":"104"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2e6aa_2078b_1ef","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_yly5uuys","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_kjk5bcaz","target_id":"cs_gfnvdymr","properties":{"citation_text":"Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.H. v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 42 USPQ2d 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","source_offset":{"start":742,"end":792},"pincite":"1564"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2e6aa_2078b_1ef","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_x3sqzmth","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_kjk5bcaz","target_id":"st_35hzro2v","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 112","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":125,"end":138}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2e6aa_2078b_1ef","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_hlgefxgx","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_kjk5bcaz","target_id":"st_35hzro2v","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 112","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":357,"end":370}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2e6aa_2078b_1ef","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_x5fy4ym2","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_kjk5bcaz","target_id":"st_35hzro2v","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 112","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":1009,"end":1024}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2e6aa_2078b_1ef","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_y2xx4cyj","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_axhatsf2","target_id":"st_qlhihx44","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 100","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":167,"end":180}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18bd7_317","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_wkrzyfdv","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_axhatsf2","target_id":"st_chovvrcv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":444,"end":460}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18bd7_317","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_xrkbcg5u","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_axhatsf2","target_id":"se_a7ggpn7r","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2159","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18bd7_317","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_sliaucpg","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_axhatsf2","target_id":"se_vqgrrn3n","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18bd7_317","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_hc5av6zz","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_axhatsf2","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_18e23_3ce"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18bd7_317","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_gm7dv6ui","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2oww5ljy","target_id":"cs_wt5xee6v","properties":{"citation_text":"De Graffenried v. United States, 16 USPQ2d 1321 (Cl. Ct. 1990)","source_offset":{"start":217,"end":247},"pincite":"1330"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203750","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_2qsruubm","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2oww5ljy","target_id":"cs_w3hzqaqm","properties":{"citation_text":"Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 9 USPQ2d 1847 (1989)","source_offset":{"start":504,"end":551},"pincite":"148"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203750","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_vtmstfq4","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zom2pjr4","target_id":"cs_nvxziasq","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Foster, 343 F.2d 980, 145 USPQ 166 (CCPA 1965)","source_offset":{"start":348,"end":360},"pincite":"984"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203769","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ftljuhd4","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_zom2pjr4","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":26,"end":42}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203769","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_sud7h5pn","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_zom2pjr4","target_id":"st_5xsternl","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.131","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":99,"end":111}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203769","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_h6fmauh5","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_uawermjl","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":57,"end":70}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_102b2c18c_14af8_209","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_t47hvicm","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_uawermjl","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":311,"end":324}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_102b2c18c_14af8_209","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_jucll4wi","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_uawermjl","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":381,"end":394}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_102b2c18c_14af8_209","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_l6bescd6","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_uawermjl","target_id":"st_chovvrcv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":456,"end":472}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_102b2c18c_14af8_209","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_binayybs","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_uawermjl","target_id":"st_erhyeayh","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(e)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":540,"end":556}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_102b2c18c_14af8_209","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_u3vv5qyb","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_uawermjl","target_id":"se_5tfatyoo","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2132.01","target_anchor":"d0e203530"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_102b2c18c_14af8_209","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_3z2mccyv","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_uawermjl","target_id":"se_qyw22cak","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2136.05","target_anchor":"d0e206333"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_102b2c18c_14af8_209","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_7n23ot3q","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ecffbd22","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":29,"end":45}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59006","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_iihmrqb6","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_wi7rhm2x","target_id":"st_vfp4s2k5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 120","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":52,"end":65}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59021","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_e7joqnbg","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_wi7rhm2x","target_id":"st_ck26ngci","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.78","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":97,"end":108}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59021","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_kuuro2jy","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_wi7rhm2x","target_id":"st_ck26ngci","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.78","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":193,"end":204}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59021","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_dshtlz74","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"li_wi7rhm2x","target_id":"se_2sllbzbt","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 211.04","target_anchor":"ch200_d1ff71_24f8b_4a"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59021","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_aswi2u2f","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_c3yjtoht","target_id":"st_oz3zng25","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.76","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":110,"end":121}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf0_1e815_34e","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_aheta2sq","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_c3yjtoht","target_id":"st_ck26ngci","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.78","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":200,"end":211}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf0_1e815_34e","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_lfceg77b","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_bl2jcojn","target_id":"st_oz3zng25","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.76","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":214,"end":225}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf0_1e877_387","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_xevumkvx","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_bl2jcojn","target_id":"st_ck26ngci","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.78","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":304,"end":315}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf0_1e877_387","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_qdtfjj5m","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_eu5emioh","target_id":"st_ii42pq7g","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 112(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":112,"end":128}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf0_1e8d5_16b","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_vo5n5era","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_eu5emioh","target_id":"st_35hzro2v","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 112","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":189,"end":202}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf0_1e8d5_16b","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_2lpzvevo","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"li_eu5emioh","target_id":"se_2sllbzbt","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 211","target_anchor":"ch200_d1ff71_1bd25_18b"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf0_1e8d5_16b","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_zhd3gp4c","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_56kpqjuy","target_id":"st_lovk7ipw","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 119(e)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":52,"end":68}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59037","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_wp47ostw","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_56kpqjuy","target_id":"st_lovk7ipw","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 119(e)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":445,"end":461}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59037","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_jiafptba","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_56kpqjuy","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":589,"end":605}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59037","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_pjq5xk5o","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_56kpqjuy","target_id":"st_chovvrcv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":668,"end":684}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59037","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_7ehekn7m","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_56kpqjuy","target_id":"st_lovk7ipw","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 119(e)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":934,"end":950}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59037","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_spqm3tge","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_56kpqjuy","target_id":"st_chovvrcv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":1043,"end":1059}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59037","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ejevfc6q","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_56kpqjuy","target_id":"st_chovvrcv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":1114,"end":1130}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59037","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_yjq6utb6","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_56kpqjuy","target_id":"st_ck26ngci","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.78","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":107,"end":118}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59037","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_hyezewck","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_56kpqjuy","target_id":"st_ck26ngci","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.78","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":199,"end":210}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59037","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_uatowiy3","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"li_56kpqjuy","target_id":"se_2sllbzbt","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 211.01(a)","target_anchor":"ch200_d1ff71_20a5e_149"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59037","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_lyy3cx6o","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"li_56kpqjuy","target_id":"se_5tfatyoo","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2132.01","target_anchor":"d0e203530"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e59037","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_qgw2wg3o","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_gbiwd2gc","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":334,"end":347}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c2a_1d3","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_cmmgba43","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_gbiwd2gc","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":510,"end":523}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c2a_1d3","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_aeynym43","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_gbiwd2gc","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":631,"end":644}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c2a_1d3","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_5vv4f5wz","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_gbiwd2gc","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":729,"end":742}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c2a_1d3","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_6mwbdq3j","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_gbiwd2gc","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_1e416_252"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c2a_1d3","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_brbsdrnf","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ec2l4vgl","target_id":"st_chovvrcv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":500,"end":516}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d1ff6b_299c5_c","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_zbguzeh7","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ec2l4vgl","target_id":"st_chovvrcv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":649,"end":665}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d1ff6b_299c5_c","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_t2blkh65","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ec2l4vgl","target_id":"st_chovvrcv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":711,"end":727}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d1ff6b_299c5_c","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_prlruj6c","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ec2l4vgl","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":889,"end":905}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d1ff6b_299c5_c","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_w6l6es4a","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tqxotzma","target_id":"cs_5qf6lvv7","properties":{"citation_text":"Dart Indus. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 489 F.2d 1359, 179 USPQ 392 (7th Cir. 1973)","source_offset":{"start":352,"end":396},"pincite":"1365"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203789","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_6tmpi7c5","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tqxotzma","target_id":"cs_svlpy76k","properties":{"citation_text":"Hobbs v. United States, 451 F.2d 849, 171 USPQ 713 (5th Cir. 1971)","source_offset":{"start":658,"end":679},"pincite":"859-60"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203789","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_5ixi364s","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tqxotzma","target_id":"cs_lsdn4prw","properties":{"citation_text":"Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 628, 129 USPQ2d 1189 (2019)","source_offset":{"start":879,"end":936},"pincite":"129"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203789","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_s5mgpjia","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_tqxotzma","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":8,"end":24}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203789","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_zruzsgys","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_tqxotzma","target_id":"st_k7imokil","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)","specificity":"paragraph","source_offset":{"start":759,"end":778}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203789","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_vjujav5m","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_tqxotzma","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":819,"end":835}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203789","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_kvlrib4m","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_tqxotzma","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152.02(d)","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_2254b_3e0"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203789","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_yixtepjo","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_gkfvixay","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":253,"end":269}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203803","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_fbrb63i7","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_gkfvixay","target_id":"se_rgreyub5","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2133.03(a)","target_anchor":"d0e203899"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203803","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_5rmqgfwc","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_lr6szopr","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":32,"end":48}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203840","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_y7ik4u2y","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_lr6szopr","target_id":"st_ompe7akv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":205,"end":218}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203840","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_pnpxuhwy","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"li_4mgelrcl","target_id":"cs_ekxnyskf","properties":{"citation_text":"RCA Corp. v. Data Gen. Corp., 887 F.2d 1056, 12 USPQ2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","source_offset":{"start":146,"end":174},"pincite":"1062"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203863","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_sd2c4evh","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"li_jwmsa3ly","target_id":"se_rgreyub5","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2133.03(e)(1)","target_anchor":"d0e204712"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203873","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_iyyz7wdx","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"li_jucrwlu7","target_id":"cs_pa4oehnn","properties":{"citation_text":"Manville SalesCorp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 16 USPQ2d 1587 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","source_offset":{"start":202,"end":245},"pincite":"549"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203889","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_i6sidzez","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_3h5tvzho","target_id":"st_qlhihx44","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 100","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":167,"end":180}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c41_1bd","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_7pfnlhmu","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_3h5tvzho","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":496,"end":509}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c41_1bd","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_77sx4tnk","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_3h5tvzho","target_id":"se_a7ggpn7r","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2159","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c41_1bd","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_w477myuw","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_3h5tvzho","target_id":"se_vqgrrn3n","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c41_1bd","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_2kyvomrz","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_3h5tvzho","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_1e416_252"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c41_1bd","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_qmlbsvkp","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_fthmuljk","target_id":"cs_mvaeyof6","properties":{"citation_text":"Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Manufacturing L.P., 424 F.3d 1374, 76 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","source_offset":{"start":147,"end":194},"pincite":"76"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203909","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_u2snxsoz","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_fthmuljk","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":33,"end":49}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203909","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_22t6hemr","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_illpcxxk","target_id":"se_rgreyub5","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2133.03(c)","target_anchor":"d0e203781"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203930","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ahrav2pd","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_qjasw53d","target_id":"cs_4luy5auw","properties":{"citation_text":"Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333 (1881)","source_offset":{"start":359,"end":376},"pincite":"336"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203939","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_e3dcsluq","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_wcbgg3yp","target_id":"cs_yunuvmmy","properties":{"citation_text":"TPLabs., Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc., 724 F.2d 965, 220 USPQ 577 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","source_offset":{"start":177,"end":224},"pincite":"970"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203952","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_7jxvn5zk","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_wcbgg3yp","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":87,"end":103}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203952","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_5etr6w4e","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_wcbgg3yp","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":113,"end":129}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203952","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_4pmwtiue","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ru3rnt4q","target_id":"st_chovvrcv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":85,"end":101}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203967","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ruhsvsvn","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_ru3rnt4q","target_id":"se_5tfatyoo","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2132","target_anchor":"d0e203390"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203967","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_qfnkcr7q","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_3mgj7xo7","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":288,"end":304}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203992","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_6s7wxs6b","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_xdauawfa","target_id":"cs_63o7uzyw","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 113 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1957)","source_offset":{"start":414,"end":429},"pincite":"783"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204017","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_yugxdjzd","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_xdauawfa","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":152,"end":168}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204017","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_qfbixgcq","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_gs2v5x35","target_id":"cs_63yc3fkj","properties":{"citation_text":"Bernhardt, L.L.C. v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc., 386 F.3d 1371, 72 USPQ2d 1901 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","source_offset":{"start":169,"end":217},"pincite":"1380-81"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204055","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_263lkp76","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_gs2v5x35","target_id":"cs_b5jzqahd","properties":{"citation_text":"Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 229 USPQ 805 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","source_offset":{"start":290,"end":326},"pincite":"1266"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204055","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_kpwchxmq","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_gs2v5x35","target_id":"se_rgreyub5","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2133.03","target_anchor":"d0e203781"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204055","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_edejdec7","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tjp3vbhk","target_id":"cs_7alnhmbp","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Smith, 714 F.2d 1127, 218 USPQ 976 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","source_offset":{"start":210,"end":221},"pincite":"1134"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204103","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_swfg6hrw","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tjp3vbhk","target_id":"cs_c6gmeurx","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (BPAI 1992)","source_offset":{"start":654,"end":664},"pincite":"1499"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204103","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_5u5ep6pb","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tjp3vbhk","target_id":"cs_4luy5auw","properties":{"citation_text":"Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333 (1881)","source_offset":{"start":1038,"end":1055},"pincite":"336"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204103","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_noezapl5","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_tjp3vbhk","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":50,"end":66}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204103","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_6u6qvzmq","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_po3n6cbl","target_id":"cs_3xohdwwv","properties":{"citation_text":"Bird Provision Co. v. Owens Country Sausage,Inc., 568 F.2d 369, 197 USPQ 134 (5th Cir. 1978)","source_offset":{"start":214,"end":262},"pincite":"374-76"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204135","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_njxtjbji","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_po3n6cbl","target_id":"cs_rt77rlaa","properties":{"citation_text":"Gillman v. Stern, 114 F.2d 28, 46 USPQ 430 (2d Cir. 1940)","source_offset":{"start":568,"end":584},"pincite":"46"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204135","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_yvyddigj","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_po3n6cbl","target_id":"cs_hp357drp","properties":{"citation_text":"Dunlop Holdings, Ltd. v. Ram Golf Corp., 524 F.2d 33, 188 USPQ 481 (7th Cir. 1975)","source_offset":{"start":627,"end":666},"pincite":"36-7"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204135","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_qpupthdd","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_po3n6cbl","target_id":"cs_whhrepg4","properties":{"citation_text":"W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","source_offset":{"start":987,"end":1023},"pincite":"1550"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204135","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_xaoiwjhe","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_po3n6cbl","target_id":"cs_rqcqjre4","properties":{"citation_text":"Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","source_offset":{"start":1284,"end":1319},"pincite":"1570-71"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204135","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_hopcszok","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_po3n6cbl","target_id":"cs_2zmlr3ni","properties":{"citation_text":"Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 16 USPQ2d 1587 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","source_offset":{"start":1985,"end":2029},"pincite":"549"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204135","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_7zuhjzxq","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_sr3jysti","target_id":"cs_5smcdnpx","properties":{"citation_text":"Dunlop Holdings Ltd. v. Ram Golf Corp., 524 F.2d 33, 188 USPQ 481 (7th Cir. 1975)","source_offset":{"start":217,"end":255},"pincite":"188"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204183","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_3bllfi6g","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_sr3jysti","target_id":"st_f5oboo62","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(f)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":166,"end":182}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204183","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_jcdeipr3","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_sr3jysti","target_id":"st_eiprdrak","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(g)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":195,"end":211}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204183","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ukoheyxo","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_sr3jysti","target_id":"se_yeiwx7nt","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2137","target_anchor":"d0e206570"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204183","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_2mlkbf7p","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_sr3jysti","target_id":"se_iya6ppc3","properties":{"link_text":"§ 2138","target_anchor":"d0e207005"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204183","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_glqiywkb","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_glymr6su","target_id":"st_qlhihx44","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 100","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":167,"end":180}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c80_3d1","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_62grju7l","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_glymr6su","target_id":"st_k7imokil","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)","specificity":"paragraph","source_offset":{"start":193,"end":212}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c80_3d1","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_egf26c5k","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_glymr6su","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":253,"end":269}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c80_3d1","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ytf75k6h","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_glymr6su","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":700,"end":713}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c80_3d1","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_5tsmx3oh","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_glymr6su","target_id":"se_a7ggpn7r","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2159","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c80_3d1","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_wbcljqe5","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_glymr6su","target_id":"se_vqgrrn3n","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c80_3d1","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_vxiqd4jz","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_glymr6su","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_1e416_252"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c80_3d1","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_shes34vn","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tq6ptlud","target_id":"cs_eru3w72g","properties":{"citation_text":"Ferag AG v. Quipp, Inc., 45 F.3d 1562, 33 USPQ2d 1512 (Fed. Cir. 1995)","source_offset":{"start":339,"end":362},"pincite":"1565"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204205","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_kdrk5h2y","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tq6ptlud","target_id":"cs_ff7sv3co","properties":{"citation_text":"Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 48 USPQ2d 1641 (1998)","source_offset":{"start":621,"end":648},"pincite":"67"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204205","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_yxefly4v","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tq6ptlud","target_id":"cs_r4jed6iw","properties":{"citation_text":"Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc., 275 F.3d 1040, 61 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2001)","source_offset":{"start":818,"end":852},"pincite":"1048"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204205","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_33thwfpr","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tq6ptlud","target_id":"cs_v2horvwi","properties":{"citation_text":"Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 59 USPQ2d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2001)","source_offset":{"start":982,"end":1021},"pincite":"1047"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204205","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ho4ey5tm","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_tq6ptlud","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":450,"end":466}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204205","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_uyutdibh","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_q2dxixow","target_id":"cs_quycrldz","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 226 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":200,"end":213},"pincite":"676"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204230","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_gqejatvn","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_q2dxixow","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":482,"end":498}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204230","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_qadsevaz","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_kbxbqvdq","target_id":"cs_swjxq5e3","properties":{"citation_text":"Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., 827 F.3d 1363, 119 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2016)","source_offset":{"start":262,"end":292},"pincite":"1364"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_299b6_20a15_215","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_fewxt55h","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_52kdphnf","target_id":"cs_t2i4g3f2","properties":{"citation_text":"Strong v. General Elec. Co., 434 F.2d 1042, 168 USPQ 8 (5th Cir. 1970)","source_offset":{"start":218,"end":245},"pincite":"1046"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204246","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_glgqcf6q","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_fjflwffp","target_id":"cs_nhpdg4z4","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Dybel, 524 F.2d 1393, 187 USPQ 593 (CCPA 1975)","source_offset":{"start":179,"end":190},"pincite":"1401"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204256","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_emlym7cs","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_fjflwffp","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":161,"end":177}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204256","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_7iye7cz4","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_fjsil3nr","target_id":"cs_m2dfi2mv","properties":{"citation_text":"ConsolidatedFruit-Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U.S. 92 (1876)","source_offset":{"start":104,"end":139},"pincite":"94"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204269","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_boqex24s","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_fjsil3nr","target_id":"cs_llbsoomk","properties":{"citation_text":"Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp., 970 F.2d 834, 23 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","source_offset":{"start":164,"end":207},"pincite":"836-37"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204269","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_hbdunkn3","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_fjsil3nr","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":86,"end":102}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204269","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_djgojbi7","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_je525ab5","target_id":"cs_oiaszrzt","properties":{"citation_text":"Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 229 USPQ 805 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","source_offset":{"start":166,"end":203},"pincite":"1267"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204288","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_fvo46fhl","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_je525ab5","target_id":"cs_nsg3oetv","properties":{"citation_text":"Elan Corp., PLC v. Andrx Pharms. Inc., 366 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","source_offset":{"start":271,"end":308},"pincite":"1341"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204288","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_dufanhxb","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_je525ab5","target_id":"cs_tqphf753","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Kollar, 286 F.3d 1326, 62 USPQ2d 1425 (Fed. Cir. 2002)","source_offset":{"start":370,"end":382},"pincite":"1330"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204288","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_gppwo3uh","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_je525ab5","target_id":"cs_v2horvwi","properties":{"citation_text":"Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 59 USPQ2d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2001)","source_offset":{"start":841,"end":880},"pincite":"1049"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204288","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_7nchdpdr","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_6ubb77jh","target_id":"cs_swjxq5e3","properties":{"citation_text":"Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., 827 F.3d 1363, 119 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2016)","source_offset":{"start":205,"end":235},"pincite":"1373"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_299b6_20ac0_106","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_55xcaf75","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_wmzb62pi","target_id":"cs_quycrldz","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 226 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":68,"end":81},"pincite":"676"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204317","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_oa5xqglw","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_wmzb62pi","target_id":"cs_eru3w72g","properties":{"citation_text":"Ferag AG v. Quipp, Inc., 45 F.3d 1562, 33 USPQ2d 1512 (Fed. Cir. 1995)","source_offset":{"start":359,"end":382},"pincite":"1566"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204317","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_qelgzcyt","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_wmzb62pi","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":232,"end":248}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204317","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ntqglald","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2gsyk2yp","target_id":"cs_v2horvwi","properties":{"citation_text":"Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 59 USPQ2d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2001)","source_offset":{"start":236,"end":275},"pincite":"1048"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204330","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_wmlsnhrq","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4r5mj4qd","target_id":"cs_54vk54um","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 204 USPQ 188 (CCPA 1979)","source_offset":{"start":143,"end":154},"pincite":"791"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204340","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_hzcfpiwz","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4r5mj4qd","target_id":"cs_chf76hop","properties":{"citation_text":"UMC Elecs. v. United States, 816 F.2d 647, 2 USPQ2d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1987)","source_offset":{"start":255,"end":282},"pincite":"653"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204340","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_atkqopwl","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jmep7mbi","target_id":"cs_6xmjwcl5","properties":{"citation_text":"Buildex v. Kason Indus.,Inc., 849 F.2d 1461, 7 USPQ2d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","source_offset":{"start":73,"end":101},"pincite":"1463-64"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204356","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_j2yidki5","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jmep7mbi","target_id":"cs_af637dew","properties":{"citation_text":"Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark, Inc., 163 F.3d 1326, 49 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1998)","source_offset":{"start":197,"end":234},"pincite":"1333"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204356","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_meq7luw7","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zf7kshfp","target_id":"cs_4p47xvvc","properties":{"citation_text":"J. A. La Porte, Inc. v. Norfolk Dredging Co., 787 F.2d 1577, 229 USPQ 435 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","source_offset":{"start":158,"end":202},"pincite":"1582"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204372","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_c4f7otyi","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zf7kshfp","target_id":"cs_ff7sv3co","properties":{"citation_text":"Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 48 USPQ2d 1641 (1998)","source_offset":{"start":377,"end":404},"pincite":"67"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204372","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_fww4qqsi","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zf7kshfp","target_id":"cs_ekq4bbuu","properties":{"citation_text":"Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co., 103 F.3d 1538, 41 USPQ2d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","source_offset":{"start":461,"end":510},"pincite":"1545"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204372","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_q2663thj","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zf7kshfp","target_id":"cs_h66ayvl4","properties":{"citation_text":"Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 225 USPQ 634 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":844,"end":893},"pincite":"225"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204372","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_gun3fpvk","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zf7kshfp","target_id":"cs_24qtpns6","properties":{"citation_text":"Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach., Ltd., 731 F.2d 831, 221 USPQ 561 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","source_offset":{"start":1135,"end":1189},"pincite":"221"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204372","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_5j5nqwop","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_zf7kshfp","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":1416,"end":1432}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204372","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_gh42gggg","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_zf7kshfp","target_id":"se_rgreyub5","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2133.03(c)","target_anchor":"d0e204494"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204372","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_uquyrkls","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tr5rz5qi","target_id":"cs_nsg3oetv","properties":{"citation_text":"Elan Corp., PLC v. Andrx Pharms. Inc., 366 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","source_offset":{"start":153,"end":190},"pincite":"1341"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204397","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_mja5drjs","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_xfiyxhb4","target_id":"cs_svlpy76k","properties":{"citation_text":"Hobbs v. United States, 451 F.2d 849, 171 USPQ 713 (5th Cir. 1971)","source_offset":{"start":192,"end":214},"pincite":"171"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204417","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_bqs4lkof","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_xfiyxhb4","target_id":"cs_lsdn4prw","properties":{"citation_text":"Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 628, 129 USPQ2d 1189 (2019)","source_offset":{"start":406,"end":463},"pincite":"129"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204417","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_qnmpoccg","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_xfiyxhb4","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":121,"end":137}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204417","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_msz7mdol","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_xfiyxhb4","target_id":"st_k7imokil","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)","specificity":"paragraph","source_offset":{"start":286,"end":305}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204417","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_zgpibcnz","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_xfiyxhb4","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":346,"end":362}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204417","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_vhu5nibu","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_xfiyxhb4","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152.02(d)","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_2254b_3e0"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204417","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_kosyksmv","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_o3bktjvq","target_id":"cs_cg5yrlse","properties":{"citation_text":"Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu, 307 U.S. 5, 41 USPQ 155 (1938)","source_offset":{"start":238,"end":278},"pincite":"41"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204430","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_47pihxgt","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_o3bktjvq","target_id":"cs_63o7uzyw","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 113 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1957)","source_offset":{"start":312,"end":327},"pincite":"783"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204430","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_mta4ajjf","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_o3bktjvq","target_id":"cs_i43fhzbe","properties":{"citation_text":"CTS Corp. v. Electro Materials Corp. of America, 469 F. Supp. 801, 202 USPQ 22 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)","source_offset":{"start":379,"end":426},"pincite":"819"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204430","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_wklvxtq7","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4tofdhxy","target_id":"cs_eru3w72g","properties":{"citation_text":"Ferag AG v. Quipp, Inc., 45 F.3d 1562, 33 USPQ2d 1512 (Fed. Cir. 1995)","source_offset":{"start":467,"end":490},"pincite":"1567"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204446","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_4gy6jlyo","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4tofdhxy","target_id":"cs_ekxnyskf","properties":{"citation_text":"RCA Corp. v. Data Gen. Corp., 887 F.2d 1056, 12 USPQ2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","source_offset":{"start":1086,"end":1114},"pincite":"1060"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204446","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_3bvupg6h","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4tofdhxy","target_id":"cs_gx2bqtx2","properties":{"citation_text":"Envirotech Corp. v. Westech Eng’g, Inc., 904 F.2d 1571, 15 USPQ2d 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","source_offset":{"start":1357,"end":1396},"pincite":"1576"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204446","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_fyrcvvw4","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_mgodm5lg","target_id":"cs_quycrldz","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 226 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":514,"end":527},"pincite":"675-76"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204472","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_7b3s2vl3","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_xsfv2pas","target_id":"cs_7vav5x45","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994)","source_offset":{"start":400,"end":413},"pincite":"31"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204482","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_azcvixnp","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_xsfv2pas","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":375,"end":391}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204482","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_pflkjc74","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_af65nprm","target_id":"st_qlhihx44","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 100","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":167,"end":180}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c93_1fa","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_hl5crqtr","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_af65nprm","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":495,"end":508}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c93_1fa","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_7ro55lk5","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_af65nprm","target_id":"se_a7ggpn7r","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2159","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c93_1fa","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_cxc7paww","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_af65nprm","target_id":"se_vqgrrn3n","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c93_1fa","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_jym7xbe7","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_af65nprm","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_1e416_252"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18c93_1fa","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_meji3jux","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_qo4hs3a6","target_id":"cs_ff7sv3co","properties":{"citation_text":"Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 48 USPQ2d 1641 (1998)","source_offset":{"start":3,"end":30},"pincite":"66-68"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204525","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_pl4qgmxy","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_qo4hs3a6","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":208,"end":224}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204525","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ev23lzgv","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_36ns3blf","target_id":"cs_mvaeyof6","properties":{"citation_text":"Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Manufacturing L.P., 424 F.3d 1374, 76 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","source_offset":{"start":147,"end":194},"pincite":"1379"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204534","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_r5i2akh2","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_36ns3blf","target_id":"cs_mdkdo23w","properties":{"citation_text":"Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark Inc., 163 F.3d 1326, 49 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1998)","source_offset":{"start":1290,"end":1326},"pincite":"1333"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204534","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_oxjcmtqg","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jqawumqd","target_id":"cs_32k4bzsq","properties":{"citation_text":"Vanmoor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 201 F.3d 1363, 53 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2000)","source_offset":{"start":169,"end":201},"pincite":"1366-67"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204555","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_kqrwtzb2","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jqawumqd","target_id":"cs_dyp3eytq","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Hamilton, 882 F.2d 1576, 11 USPQ2d 1890 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","source_offset":{"start":697,"end":711},"pincite":"1580"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204555","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_qmzeq5xu","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jqawumqd","target_id":"cs_xp2fr7e5","properties":{"citation_text":"Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 182 F.3d 1315, 51 USPQ2d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1999)","source_offset":{"start":1016,"end":1067},"pincite":"1319"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204555","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_scdoixsa","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jqawumqd","target_id":"cs_gquestrs","properties":{"citation_text":"STX LLC. v. Brine Inc., 211 F.3d 588, 54 USPQ2d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000)","source_offset":{"start":1419,"end":1441},"pincite":"591"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204555","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_h2vakrqs","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jqawumqd","target_id":"cs_zvuutgsv","properties":{"citation_text":"Field v. Knowles, 183 F.2d 593, 86 USPQ 373 (CCPA 1950)","source_offset":{"start":2220,"end":2236},"pincite":"601"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204555","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_sxijnu75","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jqawumqd","target_id":"cs_fo37s3rq","properties":{"citation_text":"Steinberg v. Seitz, 517 F.2d 1359, 186 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1975)","source_offset":{"start":2287,"end":2305},"pincite":"1363"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204555","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_yskliz54","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_jqawumqd","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":1258,"end":1274}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204555","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_rrj335pg","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jehmnhlq","target_id":"cs_llbsoomk","properties":{"citation_text":"Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp., 970 F.2d 834, 23 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","source_offset":{"start":96,"end":139},"pincite":"836-37"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204585","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_lps4ssnx","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_5lerjmmd","target_id":"cs_nvxziasq","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Foster, 343 F.2d 980, 145 USPQ 166 (CCPA 1965)","source_offset":{"start":224,"end":236},"pincite":"987-88"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204595","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_tbgjgppm","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_5lerjmmd","target_id":"cs_3vhmmesh","properties":{"citation_text":"Dart Indus. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 489 F.2d 1359, 179 USPQ 392 (7th Cir. 1973)","source_offset":{"start":291,"end":334},"pincite":"1365"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204595","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_nfhcgsyk","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_5lerjmmd","target_id":"st_5xsternl","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.131","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":43,"end":55}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204595","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_hzscchxe","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_5lerjmmd","target_id":"se_65ns7wh3","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 715.10","target_anchor":"d0e92043"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204595","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_bcc2uyvc","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_qw3owrur","target_id":"cs_tqphf753","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Kollar, 286 F.3d 1326, 62 USPQ2d 1425 (Fed. Cir. 2002)","source_offset":{"start":600,"end":612},"pincite":"1332"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204614","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_k2m6ymfo","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_qw3owrur","target_id":"cs_kdahteue","properties":{"citation_text":"D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp., 714 F.2d 1144, 219 USPQ 13 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","source_offset":{"start":882,"end":920},"pincite":"1147-48"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204614","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_tw5gxtti","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_qw3owrur","target_id":"cs_fpwr3o3i","properties":{"citation_text":"W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","source_offset":{"start":1201,"end":1243},"pincite":"1550"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204614","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_mwy7fbxk","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_qw3owrur","target_id":"cs_gllbbh4l","properties":{"citation_text":"Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C., 269 F.3d 1321, 60 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2001)","source_offset":{"start":1443,"end":1480},"pincite":"1328"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204614","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_453cduib","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_qw3owrur","target_id":"cs_fbxgdfxz","properties":{"citation_text":"Minton v. National Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 2003)","source_offset":{"start":1831,"end":1884},"pincite":"1378"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204614","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_2jlvjsvf","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_qw3owrur","target_id":"cs_g3slhoom","properties":{"citation_text":"Poly-America LP v. GSE Lining Tech. Inc., 383 F.3d 1303, 72 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","source_offset":{"start":2279,"end":2319},"pincite":"1308-09"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204614","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ccnh3ela","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_qw3owrur","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":828,"end":844}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204614","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_xj3xpr7g","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_qw3owrur","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":1329,"end":1345}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204614","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_6ywgnn52","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_qw3owrur","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":1579,"end":1595}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204614","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_tg4jttcu","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_bt7mmeqx","target_id":"st_qlhihx44","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 100","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":167,"end":180}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18cb0_4c","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ywgufbn7","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_bt7mmeqx","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":495,"end":508}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18cb0_4c","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_wl2qxfx6","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_bt7mmeqx","target_id":"se_a7ggpn7r","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2159","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18cb0_4c","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_6dgsouhp","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_bt7mmeqx","target_id":"se_vqgrrn3n","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18cb0_4c","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ozmoglqo","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_bt7mmeqx","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_1e416_252"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18cb0_4c","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_uspj2ehc","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_xwotuqbd","target_id":"cs_vo6rjnid","properties":{"citation_text":"Gandy v. Main Belting Co., 143 U.S. 587 (1892)","source_offset":{"start":533,"end":558},"pincite":"593"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204655","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_tz2iyb5j","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_xwotuqbd","target_id":"cs_fhforfaz","properties":{"citation_text":"Robbins Co. v. Lawrence Mfg. Co., 482 F.2d 426, 178 USPQ 577 (9th Cir. 1973)","source_offset":{"start":700,"end":732},"pincite":"433"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204655","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_encmkikx","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_xwotuqbd","target_id":"cs_y3hwtoje","properties":{"citation_text":"CTS Corp. v. Piher Int’l Corp., 593 F.2d 777, 201 USPQ 649 (7th Cir. 1979)","source_offset":{"start":1159,"end":1189},"pincite":"201"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204655","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_m6nkyvlo","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_xwotuqbd","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":42,"end":58}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204655","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_de7azl2p","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_xwotuqbd","target_id":"st_i5vuw5ho","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 105","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":262,"end":275}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204655","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_b4j4qzra","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_xwotuqbd","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":334,"end":350}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204655","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_mneac5vq","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_5u4q74kc","target_id":"st_qlhihx44","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 100","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":167,"end":180}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18ce9_251","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_vbt745oi","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_5u4q74kc","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":495,"end":508}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18ce9_251","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_em4fuc32","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_5u4q74kc","target_id":"se_a7ggpn7r","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2159","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18ce9_251","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_otqtb63q","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_5u4q74kc","target_id":"se_vqgrrn3n","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18ce9_251","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_z2lpzleo","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_5u4q74kc","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_1e416_252"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18ce9_251","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_w5fwt6ve","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_7apf7arw","target_id":"cs_eh3yo5re","properties":{"citation_text":"Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 63 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2002)","source_offset":{"start":243,"end":284},"pincite":"1354"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204678","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_36bgmbq5","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_7apf7arw","target_id":"cs_4roshx7h","properties":{"citation_text":"EZ Dock v. Schafer Sys., Inc., 276 F.3d 1347, 61 USPQ2d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2002)","source_offset":{"start":354,"end":383},"pincite":"1356-57"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204678","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_rqwea43u","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_7apf7arw","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":660,"end":676}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204678","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_irx5r2ea","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ap4zj3as","target_id":"cs_tyaumlq2","properties":{"citation_text":"LaBounty Mfg. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 22 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","source_offset":{"start":425,"end":474},"pincite":"1071"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204691","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ndnw4ko2","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ap4zj3as","target_id":"cs_xu5osgmu","properties":{"citation_text":"Pennwalt Corp. v. Akzona Inc., 740 F.2d 1573, 222 USPQ 833 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","source_offset":{"start":544,"end":573},"pincite":"1581"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204691","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_z2c5rf4n","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ap4zj3as","target_id":"cs_7alnhmbp","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Smith, 714 F.2d 1127, 218 USPQ 976 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","source_offset":{"start":866,"end":877},"pincite":"1134"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204691","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_6wtwqvc3","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ap4zj3as","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":67,"end":83}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204691","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_coq76xl6","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_eidsfc6h","target_id":"st_qlhihx44","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 100","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":167,"end":180}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18d04_233","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_vyqzuffx","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_eidsfc6h","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":495,"end":508}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18d04_233","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_bbbrxwcy","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_eidsfc6h","target_id":"se_a7ggpn7r","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2159","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18d04_233","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_tt3k7fxb","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_eidsfc6h","target_id":"se_vqgrrn3n","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18d04_233","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_rw5xshkc","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_eidsfc6h","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_1e416_252"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18d04_233","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_wyba2eoo","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hetlzm57","target_id":"cs_54vk54um","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 204 USPQ 188 (CCPA 1979)","source_offset":{"start":560,"end":571},"pincite":"793"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204718","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ywivqpb3","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_hetlzm57","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":55,"end":68}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204718","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_32cwzs5r","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2dqedfbl","target_id":"cs_5dliyolh","properties":{"citation_text":"Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals LP v. U.S. Venture, Inc., 32 F.4th 1161, 2022 USPQ2d 417 (Fed. Cir. 2022)","source_offset":{"start":440,"end":498},"pincite":"1171-72"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204739","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_xdrkmnof","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2dqedfbl","target_id":"cs_54vk54um","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 204 USPQ 188 (CCPA 1979)","source_offset":{"start":1168,"end":1179},"pincite":"793"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204739","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_frono7on","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2dqedfbl","target_id":"cs_fhforfaz","properties":{"citation_text":"Robbins Co. v. Lawrence Mfg. Co., 482 F.2d 426, 178 USPQ 577 (9th Cir. 1973)","source_offset":{"start":1231,"end":1263},"pincite":"433"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204739","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ckjsspjq","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2dqedfbl","target_id":"cs_mhrn6vdz","properties":{"citation_text":"Ushakoff v. United States, 327 F.2d 669, 140 USPQ 341 (Ct. Cl. 1964)","source_offset":{"start":1442,"end":1467},"pincite":"140"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204739","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_kxymgu6k","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2dqedfbl","target_id":"cs_ro4tuovs","properties":{"citation_text":"Cloud v. Standard Packaging Corp., 376 F.2d 384, 153 USPQ 317 (7th Cir. 1967)","source_offset":{"start":1511,"end":1544},"pincite":"153"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204739","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_loytivg5","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_q7juab5j","target_id":"se_rgreyub5","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2133.03","target_anchor":"d0e203781"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204764","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_wpepsdae","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"li_dk3gk6wt","target_id":"cs_y6l54bv5","properties":{"citation_text":"Cataphote Corp. v. DeSoto Chemical Coatings,Inc., 356 F.2d 24, 148 USPQ 527 (9th Cir. 1966)","source_offset":{"start":49,"end":97},"pincite":"27"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204803","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_5eqirdgm","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"li_dk3gk6wt","target_id":"cs_k2njymro","properties":{"citation_text":"Chicopee Mfg. Corp. v. Columbus Fiber Mills Co., 165 F. Supp. 307, 118 USPQ 53 (M.D. Ga. 1958)","source_offset":{"start":247,"end":294},"pincite":"323-325"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204803","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ypkk756l","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"li_4irdgsca","target_id":"cs_pz6c6zvg","properties":{"citation_text":"General Elec. Co. v. United States, 206 USPQ 260 (Ct. Cl. 1979)","source_offset":{"start":43,"end":77},"pincite":"266-67"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204822","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_hsm3h35k","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"li_4irdgsca","target_id":"cs_a4zk65o7","properties":{"citation_text":"Red Cross Mfg. v. Toro Sales Co., 525 F.2d 1135, 188 USPQ 241 (7th Cir. 1975)","source_offset":{"start":116,"end":148},"pincite":"1140"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204822","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ty6643cy","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"li_4irdgsca","target_id":"cs_zlbmb44w","properties":{"citation_text":"Monogram Mfg. v. F. & H. Mfg., 144 F.2d 412, 62 USPQ 409 (9th Cir. 1944)","source_offset":{"start":457,"end":486},"pincite":"62"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204822","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_wp6cv4vy","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"li_24egnnmk","target_id":"cs_hzsiewvf","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Josserand, 188 F.2d 486, 89 USPQ 371 (CCPA 1951)","source_offset":{"start":59,"end":74},"pincite":"491"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204847","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_7ft6dp3f","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"li_24egnnmk","target_id":"cs_waref2x4","properties":{"citation_text":"Greenewalt v. Stanley, 54 F.2d 195, 12 USPQ 122 (3d Cir. 1931)","source_offset":{"start":125,"end":146},"pincite":"12"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204847","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_holmuord","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"li_xccmhz2x","target_id":"cs_54vk54um","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 204 USPQ 188 (CCPA 1979)","source_offset":{"start":75,"end":86},"pincite":"792"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204857","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_g6oqip6v","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"li_xccmhz2x","target_id":"cs_mnmfhi34","properties":{"citation_text":"Interroyal Corp. v. Simmons Co., 204 USPQ 562 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)","source_offset":{"start":147,"end":178},"pincite":"564-66"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204857","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_uatzge7i","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"li_xccmhz2x","target_id":"cs_e4w56jdv","properties":{"citation_text":"Akron Brass, Co. v. Elkhart Brass Mfg.,Inc., 353 F.2d 704, 147 USPQ 301 (7th Cir. 1965)","source_offset":{"start":218,"end":261},"pincite":"709"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204857","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_qgjnr37l","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"li_xccmhz2x","target_id":"cs_2sh23fgh","properties":{"citation_text":"Tucker Aluminum Prods. v. Grossman, 312 F.2d 393, 136 USPQ 244 (9th Cir. 1963)","source_offset":{"start":317,"end":351},"pincite":"394"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204857","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_plni727v","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_ddraeoyc","target_id":"se_rgreyub5","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2133.03(e)(4)","target_anchor":"d0e203781"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204878","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_s572k33q","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ecrxq3fo","target_id":"st_qlhihx44","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 100","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":167,"end":180}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18d58_1b2","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_4a3rn2zr","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ecrxq3fo","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":495,"end":508}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18d58_1b2","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_if5lcujq","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_ecrxq3fo","target_id":"se_a7ggpn7r","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2159","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18d58_1b2","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_bjvc372x","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_ecrxq3fo","target_id":"se_vqgrrn3n","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18d58_1b2","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_7kchtxsv","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_ecrxq3fo","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_1e416_252"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18d58_1b2","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_o6gyphhz","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_nmwg2r3o","target_id":"cs_mhtdvsy5","properties":{"citation_text":"LaBounty Mfg., Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 22 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","source_offset":{"start":357,"end":412},"pincite":"1072"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204888","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_b4je5vkh","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_nmwg2r3o","target_id":"cs_ob2ewqby","properties":{"citation_text":"Harrington Mfg. Co. v. Powell Mfg. Co., 815 F.2d 1478, 2 USPQ2d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","source_offset":{"start":482,"end":520},"pincite":"1480"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204888","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_hbsbgicp","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_nmwg2r3o","target_id":"cs_5dliyolh","properties":{"citation_text":"Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals LP v. U.S. Venture, Inc., 32 F.4th 1161, 2022 USPQ2d 417 (Fed. Cir. 2022)","source_offset":{"start":589,"end":647},"pincite":"1171-72"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204888","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_cftnkuh5","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_nmwg2r3o","target_id":"cs_a33nnfgx","properties":{"citation_text":"Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Labs., Inc., 984 F.2d 1182, 25 USPQ2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993)","source_offset":{"start":861,"end":913},"pincite":"25"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204888","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_nukntjep","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_oddtjztc","target_id":"st_qlhihx44","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 100","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":167,"end":180}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18d77_1b1","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_bainjwyy","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_oddtjztc","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":495,"end":508}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18d77_1b1","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ix5til3y","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_oddtjztc","target_id":"se_a7ggpn7r","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2159","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18d77_1b1","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_qjpnbvgj","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_oddtjztc","target_id":"se_vqgrrn3n","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18d77_1b1","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ta7vr5hl","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_oddtjztc","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_1e416_252"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18d77_1b1","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_nzopebrr","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_eczz4hip","target_id":"cs_mnmfhi34","properties":{"citation_text":"Interroyal Corp. v. Simmons Co., 204 USPQ 562 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)","source_offset":{"start":558,"end":589},"pincite":"566"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204915","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_hjjr6z3l","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_eczz4hip","target_id":"cs_n52zbw6z","properties":{"citation_text":"Skil Corp. v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co., 358 F. Supp. 1257, 178 USPQ 562 (N.D. Ill. 1973)","source_offset":{"start":626,"end":666},"pincite":"1261"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204915","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_jd5e52wb","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_eczz4hip","target_id":"cs_3ftdoudq","properties":{"citation_text":"Skil Corp. v. Lucerne Products Inc., 503 F.2d 745, 183 USPQ 396 (7th Cir. 1974)","source_offset":{"start":766,"end":801},"pincite":"183"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204915","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_aactiuxk","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_eczz4hip","target_id":"se_rgreyub5","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2133.03(c)","target_anchor":"d0e204494"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204915","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_cayc4a4x","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_eutsno2g","target_id":"cs_54vk54um","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 204 USPQ 188 (CCPA 1979)","source_offset":{"start":591,"end":602},"pincite":"793"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204947","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_dj4cyht6","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_qmirhuir","target_id":"cs_63o7uzyw","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 113 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1957)","source_offset":{"start":635,"end":650},"pincite":"113"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204960","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_s4eajwbt","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_qmirhuir","target_id":"cs_crwlo6xu","properties":{"citation_text":"Watson v. Allen, 254 F.2d 342, 117 USPQ 68 (D.C. Cir. 1958)","source_offset":{"start":699,"end":713},"pincite":"117"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204960","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_d5vxmao5","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_qmirhuir","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":617,"end":633}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204960","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_fagnbo2c","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_yg7qyeap","target_id":"st_qlhihx44","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 100","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":167,"end":180}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18db1_35a","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_4yzbgcui","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_yg7qyeap","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":495,"end":508}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18db1_35a","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_5itsfa3y","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_yg7qyeap","target_id":"se_a7ggpn7r","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2159","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18db1_35a","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_q47fg5rc","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_yg7qyeap","target_id":"se_vqgrrn3n","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18db1_35a","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_s2jblgp2","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_yg7qyeap","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_1e416_252"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18db1_35a","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_qqw7lphd","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_i2d4zpwo","target_id":"cs_eh3yo5re","properties":{"citation_text":"Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 63 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2002)","source_offset":{"start":890,"end":931},"pincite":"1353"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204989","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_fmthgkpj","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_i2d4zpwo","target_id":"cs_4roshx7h","properties":{"citation_text":"EZ Dock v. Schafer Sys., Inc., 276 F.3d 1347, 61 USPQ2d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2002)","source_offset":{"start":1001,"end":1030},"pincite":"1357"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204989","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_vljnyo3l","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_i2d4zpwo","target_id":"cs_taupzta2","properties":{"citation_text":"Electromotive Div. of Gen. Motors Corp. v. Transportation Sys. Div. of Gen. Elec. Co., 417 F.3d 1203, 75 USPQ2d 1650 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","source_offset":{"start":1243,"end":1328},"pincite":"1241"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e204989","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_esbsn25w","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_3sycxd2q","target_id":"se_rgreyub5","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2133.03(e)(1)","target_anchor":"d0e203781"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205013","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_3dw4j7qt","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_j6bt3pr6","target_id":"st_qlhihx44","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 100","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":167,"end":180}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18dc9_26d","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_yqip5o4z","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_j6bt3pr6","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":495,"end":508}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18dc9_26d","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_bex3xl6e","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_j6bt3pr6","target_id":"se_a7ggpn7r","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2159","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18dc9_26d","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_gcunni67","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_j6bt3pr6","target_id":"se_vqgrrn3n","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18dc9_26d","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_gq626gzk","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_j6bt3pr6","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_1e416_252"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18dc9_26d","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_p4um5lz2","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jskvcnuq","target_id":"cs_taupzta2","properties":{"citation_text":"Electromotive Div. of Gen. Motors Corp. v. Transportation Sys. Div. of Gen. Elec. Co., 417 F.3d 1203, 75 USPQ2d 1650 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","source_offset":{"start":260,"end":345},"pincite":"1214"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205031","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_rkxhxl5n","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jskvcnuq","target_id":"cs_63o7uzyw","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 113 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1957)","source_offset":{"start":756,"end":771},"pincite":"784"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205031","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_ppdaztz6","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_jskvcnuq","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":734,"end":750}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205031","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_g7qfpbdb","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_4lzsc2wr","target_id":"st_qlhihx44","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 100","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":167,"end":180}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18e0c_304","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_jqhqdxs6","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_4lzsc2wr","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":495,"end":508}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18e0c_304","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_dlmsvyx5","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_4lzsc2wr","target_id":"se_a7ggpn7r","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2159","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18e0c_304","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_772oseg3","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_4lzsc2wr","target_id":"se_vqgrrn3n","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18e0c_304","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_xq2yjwhr","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_4lzsc2wr","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_1e416_252"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18e0c_304","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_5h476rh3","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2wx7u2i6","target_id":"cs_lx7eq42m","properties":{"citation_text":"General Motors Corp. v. Bendix Aviation Corp., 123 F. Supp. 506, 102 USPQ 58 (N.D. Ind. 1954)","source_offset":{"start":281,"end":326},"pincite":"521"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205076","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_7s63hnzf","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_2wx7u2i6","target_id":"st_keb5vdhh","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 101","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":220,"end":233}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205076","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_cpwfklxh","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_2wx7u2i6","target_id":"st_keb5vdhh","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 101","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":540,"end":553}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205076","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_slsxlzqv","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_2wx7u2i6","target_id":"st_ii42pq7g","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 112(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":555,"end":571}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205076","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_j5qgkqcr","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_2wx7u2i6","target_id":"st_35hzro2v","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 112","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":583,"end":596}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205076","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_2vdoe5tq","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_3lwi45od","target_id":"cs_54vk54um","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Theis, 610 F.2d 786, 204 USPQ 188 (CCPA 1979)","source_offset":{"start":516,"end":527},"pincite":"793"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205102","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_lhqxgcek","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_f4j2fyra","target_id":"cs_whqddplc","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581, 8 USPQ2d 2030 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","source_offset":{"start":153,"end":163},"pincite":"8"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205118","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_xjagkhn4","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_xhvthbo7","target_id":"st_qlhihx44","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 100","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":167,"end":180}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18e21_ce","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_6fc52bkt","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_xhvthbo7","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":496,"end":509}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18e21_ce","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_4dcxeik2","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_xhvthbo7","target_id":"se_a7ggpn7r","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2159","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18e21_ce","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_s7tksjpg","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_xhvthbo7","target_id":"se_vqgrrn3n","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18e21_ce","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_upnyw2vt","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_xhvthbo7","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152.02(c) through (e)","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_1e416_252"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d222e6_18e21_ce","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_hapbqsvf","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zt45htvb","target_id":"cs_74vw57oh","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Hamilton, 882 F.2d 1576, 111 USPQ2d 1890 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","source_offset":{"start":356,"end":370},"pincite":"1581"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205141","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_5z2lwsao","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zt45htvb","target_id":"cs_4yvbwqvz","properties":{"citation_text":"Magnetics, Inc. v. Arnold Engineering Co., 438 F.2d 72, 168 USPQ 392 (7th Cir. 1971)","source_offset":{"start":838,"end":879},"pincite":"74"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e205141","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}},{"id":"e_fqckfwio","edge_type":"quotes-from","source_id":"nq_x4um67k7","target_id":"cs_mvaeyof6","properties":{"quoted_text":"The proper test for the public use prong of the [pre-AIA] § 102(b) statutory bar is whether the purported use: (1) was accessible to the public; or (2) was commercially exploited. Commercial exploitation is a clear indication of public use, but it likely requires more than, for example, a secret offer for sale. Thus, the test for the public use prong includes the consideration of evidence relevant to experimentation, as well as, inter alia, the nature of the activity that occurred in public; public access to the use; confidentiality obligations imposed on members of the public who observed the use; and commercial exploitation…. That evidence is relevant to discern whether the use was a public use that could raise a bar to patentability, but it is distinct from evidence relevant to the ready for patenting component of Pfaff ’s two-part test, another necessary requirement of a public use bar.","quoted_text_sha256":"a1e8557a6a03afe62df3d720142df4d68175d7cf81690320b508ac2f411428ad","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":903}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2133.html","source_anchor":"d0e203918","source_sha256":"cb216eb62f07ce5d95300554c38069973fb42baa7f016d63db8a37708c1de5ef"}}]}}