REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Bentley et al 10599657 - (D) NAGUMO 103 MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC ROBINSON, CHANCEITY N
1736 Ex Parte Kamiyama et al 12440531 - (D) OWENS 103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE IQBAL, SYED TAHA
1741 Ex Parte Flynn et al 12080974 - (D) BEST 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(b) OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC. KEMMERLE III, RUSSELL J
1766 Ex Parte BREITENSTEIN et al 10586707 - (D) McKELVEY 103 BASF Corporation FANG, SHANE
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Lindemann et al 10529334 - (D) POTHIER 102/103 Siemens Corporation PAPPAS, PETER
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3722 Ex Parte King 11317551 - (D) MORRISON 102/103 REHRIG PACIFIC WELLINGTON, ANDREA L
3741 Ex Parte Scarinci 11255339 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 Krieg DeVault LLP NGUYEN, ANDREW H
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2651 Ex Parte Allen et al 11460750 - (D) McKEOWN 102 102/103 VERIZON LAEKEMARIAM, YOSEF K
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Mauler et al 12442866 - (D) DELMENDO 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP THOMAS, ALEXANDER S
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2666 Ex Parte Kapur et al 10692450 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY WANG, CLAIRE X
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3779 Ex Parte Birnkrant 11358201 - (D) BAHR 103 ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT
FEDERAL CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC. (doing business as Jarden Consumer Solutions), Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1581 7,947,928 12/794,284 12/255,188 7,485,831 11/365,222 O’MALLEY Dissenting REYNA 102(b) on sale bar McGuire Woods LLP; Greenberg Traurig, LLP original PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP FUQUA, SHAWNTINA T
The on-sale bar applies when two conditions are satisfied before the critical date: (1) the claimed invention
must be the subject of a commercial offer for sale; and (2) the invention must be ready for patenting. Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 67 (1998). An actual sale is not required for the activity to be an invalidating commercial offer for sale. Atlanta Attachment Co. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 516 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008). An attempt to sell is sufficient so long as it is “sufficiently definite that another party could make a binding contract by simple acceptance.” Id. (citing Netscape Commc’ns Corp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “In determining such definiteness, we review the language of the proposal in accordance with the principles of general contract law.” Id.
Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 48 USPQ2d 1641 (1998) 706.02(l)(2), 2133.03(b), 2133.03(c), 2163, 2163.02
DONNER 2: 3; 5: 254; 7: 497, 503-7, 509, 534; 8: 907, 908; 13: 169
HARMON 3: 168, 234, 235; 4: 349; 20: 160
netscape DONNER 7: 223, 236, 261, 264, 442, 475, 478, 483, 485, 609
HARMON 3: 207, 342
