Opinion ID: 667253
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged On-Sale Bar

Text: 41 Sewall argues in the alternative that, even assuming that the Board's findings as to conception are correct, the Board erred in failing to find an on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 102(b). Sewall asserts that he raised this issue in both a preliminary motion and in his final brief to the Board. 42 In his preliminary motions before the Board, Sewall argued that the invention of the count was on sale in May of 1985. However, the critical date under section 102(b) is November 15, 1984, because the Board gave both parties the benefit of Sewall's earlier November 15, 1985, filing date. In this appeal, Sewall argues for the first time that General Electric (GE) placed an order for a back projecting apparatus as recited in the count in July of 1984, more than one year before the earliest filing date of the two applications and that this constituted a sale of the invention barring a patent therefor. 5 Because this issue was not raised below, we do not decide it in this appeal.