Opinion ID: 486650
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: conclusion

Text: 114 This court, its predecessor courts, and numerous other courts, have held there is not an on-sale bar where the thing offered for sale was not reduced to practice by the critical date. When the courts have applied an on-sale bar, they have required that the thing offered for sale must be reduced to practice by the critical date. The precedent law cannot be read as merely appearing to assume the requirement in question. The panel majority does not write on a tabula rasa. The majority ignores binding precedent when it makes the conflicting holding that an on-sale bar may be applied without a reduction to practice. 115 I respectfully submit that precedent alone is sufficient reason to hold that an on-sale bar was not triggered by UMC's July 27, 1967, offer because the thing offered was not reduced to practice 1 year prior to the filing of UMC's patent application. I would affirm the Claims Court's holding that the UMC patent is not invalid under section 102(b) or sections 102(b)/103, and I would decide the other issues presented on appeal.