ÿWPCG- .âÒ>|ÁÉí=Å.w÷ŒO¦ÏKX­…ѬQ×2y‹‚ù}J?}T¦§ð5_•æZð<¬W§Gã‹m0¢öXs}ë„bÅ¡¬¹òì*üÌU LÁ«ÐKméFÆT\~%wÛ¨S+o‘¤eNåN°M™.i÷#±ølJ™B”÷ã8}×á#µ6˜5@ ¢æ9à(·%AñW9ú4ÀD˜L¸ÝDl‡—[Oܺ1WœóxqBYgÙü­í§ipâŠÙÈQÌäÿ…mqVó²ð¾4÷U3£³èÛàŽéË@𨜜øœ[MFŒÕDŽK!6â ;x¯ ¼b+®v}°ÜÍM‡ðÈ’^rh€‚?2Øû«øb{çïDÏ­9'b°GxÙBLáXc­ÚF„äȬ͗rPÃ)UV£½Œ™›\>œúU7r6âMó£ØS†ÀKK¯ðW0•P:ê ¢¦~È`KšuÜ1€¦[«f ök¬+öáðG¨1x“2Òɵ’‚im8_Wæì£ ÀÖø"{³J0U >  %Þ 0häU<L 0`ˆ 0è 0Ëu 0Ë@ 0P 0P[ U.« Ù uñ 0Of µ 0JÊ òÿñÖö±Ì}•• D+*ÆU 0O 0=j 0O§ AQöÊG U."?"U.T"‚" —"©¡&J' 0µ_'(n¡$( 0 4Å,ù, Bù,w-4-.- m0-H Œ ™`(&Line Draw 10cpiôh€€ÿÿ:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontÔ€XXXÔÔQ€,܈4 `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€&&&ÔÔQ€,܈4 `$Times NewRomanQÔ,܈4 `$Times NewRoman`€€ÿÿ:footnote reffootnote referenceÔ€XXXÔÔQ€,܈4 `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€&&&ÔÔQ€,܈4 `$Times NewRomanQÔV!ÿÿ:footnote texfootnote textÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô<;Tÿÿ.footerfooterÓ  ÓÓÿÿ°ÀÐ (#ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ>4ÿÿX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#>Ó<;Tÿÿ.headerheaderÓ  ÓÓÿÿ°ÀÐ (#ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ>4ÿÿX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#>ÓP€€ÿÿ8page numberpage numberÔ€XXXÔÔQ€,܈4 `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€&&&ÔÔQ€,܈4 `$Times NewRomanQÔP€€ÿÿ8line numberline numberÔ€XXXÔÔQ€,܈4 `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€&&&ÔÔQ€,܈4 `$Times NewRomanQÔ2L´Ä A`Univers Ö€ Ö kÝ ƒÏÑ)ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà@IIìà„€Ú  Ú3Ú  Ú€„ˆÌÌ95„1266,„1302,„1314('2ÏÑ$©©Ý ƒ)¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý Ñ = Ñ("ÿÿ$òòòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó/óó èÝ ƒ)¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý›Ó  Ó€€€€€òòòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó/óóà  àòòLough€v.€Brunswick€Corp.óó,€No.€92„799„¢CIV£„T¢„21A£€(M.D.€Fla.€Feb.€13,€1995)€(amendedÐ °  Ðjudgment);€òòLough€v.€Brunswick€Corp.óó,€No.€92„799„¢CIV£„T¢„21A£€(M.D.€Fla.€Mar.€27,€1995)€(secondÐ ° Ðamended€judgment);€òòLough€v.€Brunswick€Corp.óó,€No.€92„799„¢CIV£„T¢„21A£€(M.D.€Fla.€April€13,€1995)Ð í Ð(permanent€injunction). õÝ ƒ)¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý›Ó  Ó€€€€€òòòòÚ  Ú2Ú  Úóó/óóà  àThis€figure€is€reproduced€from€U.S.€Patent€5,052,958,€"Marine€Drive€for€Easier€Shifting,"Ð ° Ðwhich€is€assigned€to€Brunswick. çÝ ƒ)¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý›Ó  Ó€€€€€òòòòÚ  Ú3Ú  Úóó/óóà  àBrunswick€is€the€assignee€of€U.S.€Patent€5,052,958€for€a€"Marine€Drive€with€EasierÐ ° ÐShifting."€€The€'958€patent€relates€to€an€intermediate€bushing€that€provides€a€seal€between€anÏaperture€in€the€bell€housing€and€an€intermediate€point€along€the€shift€shaft.€The€patent€claimsÏprovide€for€a€gap€between€the€intermediate€bushing€and€the€shift€shaft.€€This€gap€prevents€bindingÏof€the€shift€shaft€when€corrosion€between€the€intermediate€bushing€and€the€aperture€causes€theÏbushing€to€contract€radially€inward€toward€the€shift€shaft.€€The€'958€patent€does€not€disclose€the€useÏof€the€gap€technology€in€an€upper€seal€assembly. ÌÝ ƒ)¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý›Ó  Ó€€€€€òòòòÚ  Ú4Ú  Úóó/óóà  àThe€trial€judge€instructed€the€jury€as€follows:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€law€requires€that€an€inventor€must€file€a€patent€application€within€oneÐ ŠÚ  Ðyear€after€his€invention€is€publicly€used.€€Public€use€means€any€use€of€Mr.€Lough'sÏinvention€by€any€person€other€than€Mr.€Lough€who€was€not€limited€or€restricted€inÏtheir€activities€regarding€the€invention,€or€not€obligated€to€secrecy€by€Mr.€Lough.€ÏSuch€use,€however€does€not€invalidate€Mr.€Lough's€patent€if€the€use€was€primarilyÏfor€bona€fide€experimental€purposes.€€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à.€.€.€The€parties€do€not€dispute€that€the€five€seal€assemblies€were€used€byÏothers€before€June€6,€1987.€€òòThe€only€dispute€is€whether€these€uses€qualify€asÐ  U  Ðexperimental€uses.€€The€law€places€the€burden€on€Mr.€Lough€to€come€forward€withÏconvincing€evidence€showing€that€these€uses€were€experimental€usesóó€[emphasisÐ ß/  Ðadded]. §Ý ƒ)¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý›Ó  Ó€€€€€òòòòÚ  Ú5Ú  Úóó/óóà  àEach€claim€of€the€patent€must€be€considered€individually€when€evaluating€a€public€use€bar.€Ð ° ÐHowever,€Lough€did€not€argue€lack€of€public€use€on€a€claim„by„claim€basis€at€trial.€€Nor€does€he€doÏso€on€appeal.€€Moreover,€section€102(b)€may€create€a€bar€to€¢patentability£€either€alone,€if€the€deviceÏused€in€public€is€an€anticipation€of€the€later€claimed€invention€or,€in€conjunction€with€35€U.S.C.€ððÏ103,€if€the€differences€between€the€claimed€invention€and€the€device€used€would€have€been€obviousÏto€one€skilled€in€the€art.€€òòSeeóó€òò¢LaBounty£€Mfg.,€Inc.€v.€United€States€¢Int'l£€Trade€¢Comm'n£óó,€958€F.2dÐ Q ¡ Ð1066,€1071,€22€¢USPQ2d£€1025,€1028€(Fed.€Cir.€1992).€€Thus,€our€holding€with€regard€to€the€publicÏuse€of€the€invention€applies€equally€to€all€of€the€claims€of€the€'775€patent.€€ Ö€Ö ‹Ý ƒÏÑ)ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýß|€F62x ( x 0€ €@ HE°ܿܿ°Üæ|ßâ °°°(#°(#âÔ€X`ÝXXôÔÔ€X!XXX`ÝÔÔ  Ô95„1266,€„1302,€„1314Ô€&4N %XX!ÔÔ€&Â7% %&4NÔÐ ° Ðâ °(#°(#°°â'ÈÈÈÈdxdƒ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5('2ÏÑ$££Ý ƒ)¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$””Ú  ÚÚ  Ú('2ÏÑ$¢¢Ý ƒ)¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝCþÿ<< cÿÿ ÀÝ ƒÏÑ"ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÓ$ÿÿ°ÀÐ (#°œX$ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÝ‚ ÿÿÿÝÔ€X`ÝXXôÔÔ€X`ÝXXX`ÝÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÔ€X!XXX`ÝÔÔ@  ÔÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚÔA  ÔÝ‚ ÿÿÿŠƒÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€ô?•õXX!ÔÔ€ô`ÝXõô?•ÔÝ  Ý4L´Ä A`Univers Ñ  ÑE Œ 9`(Courier Ñ = Ñ Ý ƒ)¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ݛԀX`ÝXXôÔÔ€X`ÝXXX`ÝÔÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€X`ÝXXX`ÝÔÔ€X`ÝXXX`ÝÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚÝ‚ÿÿÿ¥ƒ)ÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€X`ÝXXX`ÝÔÔ€X`ÝXXX`ÝÔÝ  Ý€The€law€of€this€circuit€is€unequivocal€that€a€ð ðparty€attacking€validity€has€the€burden€of€provingÐ ° Ðfacts€supporting€a€conclusion€of€invalidity€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.ðð€€òòò ò¢Ryco£,€Inc.€v.€Ag„Ð í ÐBag€Corp.óóó ó,€857€F.2d€1418,€1423,€8€¢USPQ2d£€1323,€1327€(Fed.€Cir.€1988).€€Whatever€the€shiftingÐ ŠÚ Ðof€the€burden€of€production€of€evidence€at€trial€may€have€occurred,€the€ultimate€burden€remainsÏwith€the€attacker.€€The€jury€verdict€leaves€no€question€that€Mercury€Marine€failed€to€carry€itsÏburden.€Ô€&Â7%XX`ÝÔ ŸÝ ƒÏÑ)ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ݛԀ!ô ‘ õXôÔà@òò(ìà„€Ú  Ú6Ú  Ú€„ˆÐ ° ÐÌ95„1266,„1302,„1314 Ñ = Ñ(w2‹"$¤¤Ý ƒ)¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€X`ÝXXôÔÔ€X`ÝXXX`ÝÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú#|x«H Œ ™`(&Line Draw 10cpiôôx Œ @ÉÞ¸ô@,܈4 `$Times NewRomanXXj܈4 PŽ 6W;XP,܈4 `$Times NewRoman&&a܈4 PŽ 6W;&P2L´Ä A`UniversomanX5wL´Ä P£ 7ûXP4L´Ä A`UniversomanXX~L´Ä P£ 7ûXP4L´Ä A`Universoman„„½L´Ä P£ 7û„PE Œ 9`(Courieromanôßs Œ @Éü7ûô@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó d˜Þ 8¢ eskt„LƒÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ)¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ݛԀX`ÝXXôÔÔ€ X!XXX`ÝÔÓ  ÓÌÒX°ÒÒX°Òà@LLìàò òUNITED€STATES€COURT€OF€APPEALS€FOR€THE€FEDERAL€CIRCUITó óÔ€ ô?•õX X!ÔÔ€ô`ÝXõ ô?•ԈР–æ ÐÌÌà@  !ìà95„1266,„1302,„1314ˆÌÌÌà@pp"ìàSTEVEN€G.€LOUGH,ˆÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee,ÌÌÌà@££)ìàv.ˆÌÌÌà@Í Í ìàBRUNSWICK€CORPORATION,€d/b/aˆÌà@HH#ìàMERCURY€MARINE,ˆÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellant.ÌÌÒ°XÒÒ°XÒÌÌÌà  àòòGeorge€H.€¢Solveson£óó,€Andrus,€¢Sceales£,€¢Starke£€&€¢Sawall£,€of€Milwaukee,€Wisconsin,€arguedÐ ÷G Ðfor€defendant„appellant.€€With€him€on€the€brief€was€òòEdward€R.€Williams,€Jr.óóÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àòòRichard€R.€Garlandóó,€Dickinson€&€Gibbons,€P.A.,€of€Sarasota,€Florida,€argued€for€plaintiff„Ð ¾ Ðappellee.€€With€him€on€the€brief€were€òòArnold€B.€Silvermanóó,€and€òòKirk€D.€¢Houser£óó,€Eckert€¢Seamans£Ð «û ТCherin£€&€¢Mellott£,€of€Pittsburgh,€Pennsylvania.€€Also€on€the€brief€was€òòWardE.€¢Dahlgren£óó,€DickinsonÐ ˜è Ð&€Gibbons,€P.A.€€Of€counsel€was€òòGeorgeK.€Staceyóó,€Eckert€¢Seamans£€¢Cherin£€&€¢Mellott£.€Ð …Õ ÐÌÌÌOn€appeal€from:€€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Middle€à È àà  à€€€€€€€€€District€of€Florida.Ð 9#‰! ÐÌÌJudge€¢Nimmons£,€Jr.ÌÐ  í&="% ÐÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñà@ìàUNITED€STATES€COURT€OF€APPEALS€FOR€THE€FEDERAL€CIRCUITˆÌÌÌÌà@  !ìà95„1266,„1302,„1314ˆÌÌÌà@pp"ìàSTEVEN€G.€LOUGH,ˆÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee,ÌÌà@££)ìàv.ˆÌÌÌà@Í Í ìàBRUNSWICK€CORPORATION,€d/b/aˆÌà@HH#ìàMERCURY€MARINE,ˆÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellant.ÌÌÌà@ååìàòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóˆÐ 4„ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€DECIDED:€€June€12,€1996Ìà@ååìàòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóˆÐ ûK ÐÌÌBefore€¢PLAGER£,€¢LOURIE£,€and€¢CLEVENGER£,€òòCircuit€Judgesóó.Ð Â ÐÌà  àOpinion€for€the€court€filed€by€òòCircuit€Judgeóó€¢Lourie£.€€Dissenting€opinion€filed€by€òòCircuitÐ œì ÐJudgeóó€¢Plager£.€€Additional€remarks€filed€by€òòCircuit€Judgeóó€¢Lourie£,€with€whom€òòCircuit€JudgeóóÐ ‰Ù ТClevenger£€joins.ÌÌ¢LOURIE£,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.Ð P"   ÐÌÓÓÑ€ Ñà  àBrunswick€Corporation,€d/b/a€Mercury€Marine,€appeals€from€the€Ñ€Ñfinal€judgment€of€theÏUnited€States€District€Court€for€the€Middle€District€of€Florida€in€which€the€court€denied€Brunswick'sÏMotion€for€Judgment€as€a€Matter€of€Law€and€its€Motion€for€New€Trial€after€a€jury€verdict€ofÏinfringement€of€U.S.€Patent€4,848,775,€owned€by€the€inventor€Steven€G.€Lough.¢×ƒ×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó/óóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€Because€the€courtÐ ¸)%(8 ÐÑ  Ñâ  âÖ€ ÿÿÖâ  âÑ = Ñâ âÑ  Ñerred€in€denying€Brunswick's€Motion€for€Judgment€as€a€Matter€of€Law,€we€reverse€in€part€and€vacateÏin€part.Ìà@66%ìàBACKGROUNDˆÌØØà  àStern€drives€are€marine€propulsion€devices€for€boats€in€which€the€engine€is€located€insideÏthe€boat€and€is€coupled€to€an€outdrive,€which€includes€a€propeller€located€outside€the€boatÏ("inboard/outboard€boat").€€A€typical€stern€drive€arrangement€is€illustrated€below.׃D×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòòòÚ  Ú2Ú  Úóó/óóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ò òÐ ò B  ÐÌÌ€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ ì% Ž Ð(M.D.€Fla.€Feb.€13,€1995).€€Brunswick€appeals.Ìà@¨¨%ìàDISCUSSIONˆÌà  àWhen€a€party€moves€for€JMOL€in€a€case€tried€to€a€jury,€we€review€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€the€district€court'sÐ Ì  Ðdecision€by€reapplying€the€JMOL€standard.€€òòMarkman€v.€Westview€Instruments,€Inc.óó,€52€F.3d€967,Ð ¦ö  Ð975,€34€USPQ2d€1321,€1326€(Fed.€Cir.€1995)€(in€banc),€òòaff'd€on€other€groundsóó,€116€S.€Ct.€1384,€38Ð €Ð ÐUSPQ2d€1461€(1996).€€Judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€against€a€winning€party€is€appropriate€when€thatÏ"party€has€been€fully€heard€on€an€issue€and€there€is€no€legally€sufficient€evidentiary€basis€for€aÏreasonable€jury€to€find€for€that€party€on€that€issue€.€.€.€."€€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€50(a)(1).€€We€also€reviewÏthe€legal€standards€that€the€jury€applied€in€reaching€its€verdict€to€determine€whether€they€wereÏcorrect€as€a€matter€of€law.€òòId.óó€€When€a€legal€issue€is€submitted€to€a€jury€without€an€objection,€weÐ Â Ðtreat€the€jury's€verdict€on€the€legal€issue€as€a€resolution€of€all€genuinely€disputed€underlying€factualÏissues€in€favor€of€the€verdict€winner.€€òòMendenhall€v.€Cedarapids,€Inc.óó,€5€F.3d€1557,€1562€n.3,€28Ð v Æ ÐUSPQ2d€1081,€1085€n.3€(Fed.€Cir.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€114€S.€Ct.€1540€(1994).€€We€review€the€jury'sÐ P"   Ðresolution€of€all€factual€disputes€for€substantial€evidence.€òòMarkmanóó,€52€F.3d€at€975,€34€USPQ2d€atÐ *$z" Ð1326.€Ìà  àBrunswick€challenges,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€the€court's€denial€of€its€motion€for€JMOL€on€the€issue€ofÐ Þ'.#& Ðpublic€use.€€Brunswick€argues€that€the€district€court€erred€in€denying€its€motion€for€JMOL€becauseÐ ¸)%( Ðthe€uses€of€Lough's€prototypes€prior€to€the€critical€date€were€not€experimental.€€Brunswick€assertsÏthat€Lough€did€not€control€the€uses€of€his€prototypes€by€third€parties€before€the€critical€date,€failedÏto€keep€records€of€the€alleged€experiments,€and€did€not€place€the€parties€to€whom€the€seals€wereÏgiven€under€any€obligation€of€secrecy.€€Based€on€this€objective€evidence,€Brunswick€argues€that€theÏuses€of€Lough's€prototypes€before€the€critical€date€were€not€"experimental."€€Therefore,€BrunswickÏcontends€that€the€jury's€verdict€was€incorrect€as€a€matter€of€law€and€that€the€court€erred€in€denyingÏits€¢JMOL£€motion.Ìà  àLough€counters€that€the€tests€performed€with€the€six€prototypes€were€necessary€experimentsÏconducted€in€the€course€of€completing€his€invention.€€He€argues€that€when€the€totality€ofÏcircumstances€is€properly€viewed,€the€evidence€supports€the€jury's€conclusion€that€those€uses€wereÏexperimental.€€Lough€maintains€that€a€number€of€factors€support€the€jury's€experimental€useÏconclusion,€including€evidence€that€he€received€no€compensation€for€the€prototypes,€he€did€not€placeÏthe€seal€assemblies€on€sale€until€after€he€filed€his€patent€application,€and€he€gave€the€prototypes€onlyÏto€his€friends€and€personal€acquaintances€who€used€them€in€such€a€manner€that€they€were€unlikelyÏto€be€seen€by€the€public.€€He€further€argues€that,€to€verify€¢operability£€of€the€seal€assemblies,Ïprototypes€had€to€be€installed€by€mechanics€of€various€levels€of€skill€in€boats€that€were€exposed€toÏdifferent€conditions.€€Thus,€he€asserts€that€the€court€did€not€err€in€denying€Brunswick's€¢JMOL£Ïmotion.€€We€disagree€with€Lough.Ìà  àOne€is€entitled€to€a€patent€unless,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€"the€invention€was€.€.€.€in€public€use€.€.€.€in€thisÐ &T!$ Ðcountry,€more€than€one€year€prior€to€the€date€of€the€application€for€patent€in€the€United€States."€€35ÏU.S.C.€ðð€102(b)€(1994).€€We€have€defined€"public€use"€as€including€"any€use€of€[the€claimed]Ð ¸)%( Ðinvention€by€a€person€other€than€the€inventor€who€is€under€no€limitation,€restriction€or€obligationÏof€secrecy€to€the€inventor."€€òòIn€re€Smithóó,€714€F.2d€1127,€1134,€218€¢USPQ£€976,€983€(Fed.€Cir.€1983)Ð ŠÚ Ð(citing€òòEgbert€v.€¢Lippmann£óó,€104€U.S.€333,€336€(1881)).€€An€evaluation€of€a€question€of€public€useÐ d´ Ðdepends€on€"how€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€of€the€case€comports€with€the€policies€underlyingÏthe€public€use€bar."€òòTone€Bros.€v.€¢Sysco£€Corp.óó,€28€F.3d€1192,€1198,€31€¢USPQ2d£€1321,€1324€(Fed.Ð  h ÐCir.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€115€S.€Ct.€1356€(1995).€€These€policies€include:Ð ò B  ÐÓÓà8  à(1)€discouraging€the€removal,€from€the€public€domain,€of€inventions€that€the€publicÏreasonably€has€come€to€believe€are€freely€available;€(2)€favoring€the€prompt€andÏwidespread€disclosure€of€inventions;€(3)€allowing€the€inventor€a€reasonable€amountÏof€time€following€sales€activity€to€determine€the€potential€economic€value€of€aÏpatent;€and€(4)€prohibiting€the€inventor€from€commercially€exploiting€the€inventionÏfor€a€period€greater€than€the€statutorily€prescribed€time.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€1198,€31€¢USPQ2d£€at€1324„25.€€A€patentee€may€negate€a€showing€of€public€use€by€comingÐ G— Ðforward€with€evidence€that€its€use€of€the€invention€was€experimental.€€òòSeeóó€òò¢TP£€Lab.€v.€ProfessionalÐ !q ТPositioners£,€Inc.óó,€724€F.2d€965,€971,€220€¢USPQ£€577,€582€(Fed.€Cir.)€("[¢I]f£€a€òòprimaóó€òòfacieóó€case€is€madeÐ ûK Ðof€public€use,€the€patent€owner€must€be€able€to€point€to€or€must€come€forward€with€convincingÏevidence€to€counter€that€showing."),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€469€U.S.€826€(1984).€€Ð ¯ÿ Ðà  àNeither€party€disputes€that€Lough's€prototypes€were€in€use€before€the€critical€date.€€Thus,Ïboth€parties€agree€that€the€issue€presented€on€appeal€is€whether€the€jury€properly€decided€that€theÏuse€of€Lough's€six€prototypes€in€1986,€prior€to€the€critical€date,€constituted€experimental€use€so€asÏto€negate€the€conclusion€of€public€use.׃×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòòòÚ  Ú4Ú  Úóó/óóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Whether€an€invention€was€in€public€use€prior€to€the€criticalÐ %g # Ðdate€within€the€meaning€of€ðð102(b)€is€a€question€of€law.€òò¢Manville£€Sales€Corp.€v.€Paramount€¢Sys£.,Ð ° ÐInc.óó,€917€F.2d€544,€549,€16€¢USPQ2d£€1587,€1591€(Fed.€Cir.€1990).Ð ŠÚ Ðà  à"The€use€of€an€invention€by€the€inventor€himself,€or€of€any€other€person€under€his€direction,Ïby€way€of€experiment,€and€in€order€to€bring€the€invention€to€perfection,€has€never€been€regarded€asÏ[a€public]€use."€€òòCity€of€Elizabeth€v.€American€Nicholson€Pavement€Co.óó,€97€U.S.€126,€134€(1877).€Ð  h ÐThis€doctrine€is€based€on€the€underlying€policy€of€providing€an€inventor€time€to€determine€if€theÏinvention€is€suitable€for€its€intended€purpose,€in€effect,€to€reduce€the€invention€to€practice.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óóÐ Ì  Ðat€137€("It€is€sometimes€said€that€an€inventor€acquires€an€undue€advantage€over€the€public€byÏdelaying€to€take€out€a€patent€.€.€.€but€this€cannot€be€said€with€justice€when€the€delay€is€occasionedÏby€a€òòbonaóó€òòfideóó€effort€to€bring€his€invention€to€perfection,€or€to€ascertain€whether€it€will€answer€theÐ Zª Ðpurpose€intended.");€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòRCA€Corp.€v.€Data€General€Corp.óó,€887€F.2d€1056,€1061,€12€¢USPQ2d£Ð 4„ Ð1449,€1453€(Fed.€Cir.€1989)€("[¢E]xperimental£€use,€which€means€perfecting€or€completing€anÏinvention€to€the€point€of€determining€that€it€will€work€for€its€intended€purpose,€ends€with€an€actualÐ è8 Ðreduction€to€practice.").€€If€a€use€is€experimental,€it€is€not,€as€a€matter€of€law,€a€public€use€within€theÏmeaning€of€section€102.€€Ìà  àTo€determine€whether€a€use€is€"experimental,"€a€question€of€law,€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances€must€be€considered,€including€various€objective€indicia€of€experimentationÏsurrounding€the€use,€such€as€the€number€of€prototypes€and€duration€of€testing,€whether€records€orÏprogress€reports€were€made€concerning€the€testing,€the€existence€of€a€secrecy€agreement€betweenÏthe€patentee€and€the€party€performing€the€testing,€whether€the€patentee€received€compensation€forÏthe€use€of€the€invention,€and€the€extent€of€control€the€inventor€maintained€over€the€testing.€€òòSeeóó€òò¢TP£Ð ¦ö  ÐLaboratoriesóó,€724€F.2d€at€971„72,€220€¢USPQ£€at€582;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òò¢Sinskey£€v.€¢Pharmacia£€¢Opthalmics£,€Inc.óó,Ð €Ð Ð982€F.2d€494,€498,€25€¢USPQ2d£€1290,€1294€(Fed.€Cir.€1992)€(listing€objective€evidence€to€beÏconsidered€to€determine€if€use€is€"experimental"),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€508€U.S.€912€(1993);€òòBaker€OilÐ 4„ ÐTools,€Inc.€v.€¢Geo£€¢Vann£,€Inc.óó,€828€F.2d€1558,€1564,€4€¢USPQ2d£€1210,€1214€(Fed.€Cir.€1987)€(same).€Ð ^ ÐThe€last€factor€of€control€is€critically€important,€because,€if€the€inventor€has€no€control€over€theÏalleged€experiments,€he€is€not€experimenting.€€If€he€does€not€inquire€about€the€testing€or€receiveÏreports€concerning€the€results,€similarly,€he€is€not€experimenting.€€€€Ìà  àIn€order€to€justify€a€determination€that€legally€sufficient€experimentation€has€occurred,€thereÏmust€be€present€certain€minimal€indicia.€€The€framework€might€be€quite€formal,€as€may€be€expectedÏwhen€large€corporations€conduct€experiments,€governed€by€contracts€and€explicit€writtenÏobligations.€€When€individual€inventors€or€small€business€units€are€involved,€however,€less€formalÏand€seemingly€casual€experiments€can€be€expected.€€Such€less€formal€experiments€may€be€deemedÏlegally€sufficient€to€avoid€the€public€use€bar,€but€only€if€they€demonstrate€the€presence€of€the€sameÐ ¸)%( Ðbasic€elements€that€are€required€to€validate€any€experimental€program.€€Our€case€law€sets€out€theseÏelements.€€òòSeeóó€òòTP€Laboratoriesóó,€724€F.2d€at€971„72,€220€USPQ€at€582;€òòBaker€Oil€Toolsóó,€828€F.2dÐ ŠÚ Ðat€1564,€4€USPQ2d€at€1214.€€The€question€framed€on€this€appeal€is€whether€Lough's€allegedÏexperiments€lacked€enough€of€these€required€indicia€so€that€his€efforts€cannot,€as€a€matter€of€law,Ïbe€recognized€as€experimental.€€Ìà  àHere,€Lough€either€admits€or€does€not€dispute€the€following€facts.€€In€the€spring€of€1986,€heÏnoted€that€the€upper€seal€assembly€in€Brunswick€inboard/outboard€boats€was€failing€due€to€galvanicÏcorrosion€between€the€annular€seal€and€the€aperture€provided€for€the€upper€seal€assembly€in€theÏaluminum€bell€housing.€He€solved€this€problem€by€isolating€the€annular€seal€from€the€aluminum€bellÏhousing€in€order€to€prevent€corrosion.€€After€some€trial€and€error,€Lough€made€six€prototypes.€€HeÏinstalled€the€first€prototype€in€his€own€boat.€€Lough€testified€at€trial€that€after€the€first€prototype€hadÏbeen€in€his€boat€for€three€months€and€he€determined€that€it€worked,€he€provided€the€other€prototypesÏto€friends€and€acquaintances€in€order€to€find€out€if€the€upper€seal€assemblies€would€work€as€well€inÏtheir€boats€as€it€had€worked€in€his€boat.€€Lough€installed€one€prototype€in€the€boat€of€his€friend,€TomÏNikla.€€A€prototype€was€also€installed€in€the€boat€of€Jim€Yow,€co„owner€of€the€dealership€whereÏLough€worked.€€Lough€installed€a€fourth€prototype€in€one€of€the€dealership's€customers€who€hadÏconsiderable€problems€with€corrosion€in€his€stern€drive€unit.€€The€final€two€prototypes€were€givenÏto€friends€who€were€employed€at€a€different€marina€in€Florida.€€These€friends€installed€one€prototypeÏin€the€boat€of€Mark€Liberman,€a€local€charter€guide.€€They€installed€the€other€prototype€in€aÏdemonstration€boat€at€their€marina.€€Subsequently,€this€boat€was€sold.€€Neither€Lough€nor€his€friendsÏknew€what€happened€with€either€the€prototype€or€the€demonstration€boat€after€the€boat€was€sold.€Ð ¸)%( ÐAfter€providing€the€five€prototypes€to€these€third€parties,€Lough€neither€asked€for€nor€received€anyÏcomments€concerning€the€¢operability£€of€these€prototypes.€€Ìà  àAccepting€that€the€jury€found€these€facts,€which€either€were€undisputed€or€were€as€assertedÏby€Lough,€it€cannot€be€reasonably€disputed€that€Lough's€use€of€the€invention€was€not€"experimental"Ïso€as€to€negate€a€conclusion€of€public€use.€€It€is€true€that€Lough€did€not€receive€any€compensationÏfor€the€use€of€the€prototypes.€€He€did€not€place€the€seal€assembly€on€sale€before€applying€for€aÏpatent.€€Lough's€lack€of€commercialization,€however,€is€not€¢dispositive£€of€the€public€use€questionÏin€view€of€his€failure€to€present€objective€evidence€of€experimentation.€€Lough€kept€no€records€ofÏthe€alleged€testing.€€òòSeeóó€òòParagon€Podiatry€Lab.,€Inc.€v.€¢KLM£€Lab.,€Inc.óó,€984€F.2d€1182,€1188,€25Ð €Ð ТUSPQ2d£€1561,€1566€(Fed.€Cir.€1993)€("[¢W]hen£€further€combined€with€other€factors,€such€as€theÏinventor's€failure€to€keep€test€records,€the€entire€surrounding€circumstances€point€to€only€oneÏpossible€legal€conclusion„„that€the€sales€[of€the€patented€device]€were€commercial€in€nature€and€fallÏwithin€the€statutory€bar.");€òò¢Sinskey£óó,€982€F.2d€at€499,€25€¢USPQ2d£€at€1294€(relying€on€patentee'sÐ è8 Ðfailure€to€introduce€medical€records€that€would€likely€indicate€that€use€of€medical€device€wasÏexperimental).€€Nor€did€he€inspect€the€seal€assemblies€after€they€had€been€installed€by€otherÏmechanics.€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€re€Hamiltonóó,€882€F.2d€1576,€1581„83,€11€¢USPQ2d£€1890,€1894„96€(Fed.€Cir.Ð v Æ Ð1989)€(lack€of€involvement€by€inventor€in€alleged€testing€is€an€important€factor€in€determining€thatÏuse€was€not€experimental).€€He€provided€the€seal€assemblies€to€friends€and€acquaintances,€butÏwithout€any€provision€for€follow„up€involvement€by€him€in€assessment€of€the€events€occurringÏduring€the€alleged€experiments,€and€at€least€one€seal€was€installed€in€a€boat€that€was€later€sold€toÏstrangers.€Thus,€Lough€did€not€maintain€any€supervision€and€control€over€the€seals€during€theÐ ¸)%( Ðalleged€testing.€€òòSeeóó€òòBeachcombers€v.€¢Wildewood£€Creative€Prods.óó,€31€F.3d€1154,€1160,€31€¢USPQ2d£Ð ° Ð1653,€1657„58€(Fed.€Cir.€1994)€(sustaining€jury's€finding€of€public€use€based€on€inventor's€failureÏto€control€use€of€the€patented€device€and€the€future€dissemination€of€information€about€it);ÏòòHamiltonóó,€882€F.2d€at€1580,€11€¢USPQ2d£€at€1893€("The€Supreme€Court€[in€òòCity€of€Elizabethóó]€hasÐ > Ž Ðindicated€that€for€an€assertion€of€experimental€use€to€have€merit,€it€must€be€clear€that€the€inventorÏkept€control€over€his€invention€in€the€course€of€its€testing.").€€Ìà  àLough€argues€that€other€evidence€supports€a€finding€that€his€uses€were€experimental,Ïincluding€his€own€testimony€that€the€prototypes€were€installed€for€experimental€purposes€and€theÏfact€that€the€prototypes€were€used€in€such€a€manner€that€they€were€unlikely€to€be€seen€by€the€public.€ÏHowever,€"the€expression€by€an€inventor€of€his€subjective€intent€to€experiment,€particularly€afterÏinstitution€of€litigation,€is€generally€of€minimal€value."€€òò¢TP£€Laboratoriesóó,€724€F.2d€at€972,€220€¢USPQ£Ð 4„ Ðat€583.€€In€addition,€the€fact€that€the€prototypes€were€unlikely€to€be€seen€by€the€public€does€notÏsupport€Lough's€position.€€As€the€Supreme€Court€stated€in€òòEgbert€v.€Lippmanóó:Ð è8 ÐÓÓà8  à[¢S]ome£€inventions€are€by€their€very€character€only€capable€of€being€used€where€theyÏcannot€be€seen€or€observed€by€the€public€eye.€€An€invention€may€consist€of€a€leverÏor€spring,€hidden€in€the€running€gear€of€a€watch,€or€of€a€rachet,€shaft,€or€cog„wheelÏcovered€from€view€in€the€recesses€of€a€machine€for€spinning€or€weaving.€ÏNevertheless,€if€its€inventor€sells€a€machine€of€which€his€invention€forms€a€part,€andÏallows€it€to€be€used€without€restriction€of€any€kind,€the€use€is€a€public€one.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓ104€U.S.€at€336.€€Moreover,€those€to€whom€he€gave€the€prototypes€constituted€"the€public,"€in€theÏabsence€of€meaningful€evidence€of€experimentation.€€Thus,€we€find€Lough's€reliance€on€thisÏadditional€evidence€to€be€of€minimal€value€when€viewed€in€light€of€the€totality€of€the€otherÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€alleged€experimentation.€€Ð Ë($' Ðà  àWe€therefore€hold€that€the€jury€had€no€legal€basis€to€conclude€that€the€uses€of€Lough'sÏprototypes€were€experimental€and€that€the€prototypes€were€not€in€public€use€prior€to€the€critical€date.€ÏOur€holding€is€consistent€with€the€policy€underlying€the€experimental€use€negation,€that€of€providingÏan€inventor€time€to€determine€if€the€invention€is€suitable€for€its€intended€purpose,€òòi.e.óó,€to€reduce€theÐ > Ž Ðinvention€to€practice.€€Lough's€activities€clearly€were€not€consistent€with€that€policy.€€We€do€notÏdispute€that€it€may€have€been€desirable€in€this€case€for€Lough€to€have€had€his€prototypes€installedÏby€mechanics€of€various€levels€of€skill€in€boats€that€were€exposed€to€different€conditions.€€Moreover,ÏLough€was€free€to€test€his€invention€in€boats€of€friends€and€acquaintances€to€further€verify€that€hisÏinvention€worked€for€its€intended€purpose;€however,€Lough€was€required€to€maintain€some€degreeÏof€control€and€feedback€over€those€uses€of€the€prototypes€if€those€tests€were€to€negate€public€use.€ÏòòSeeóó€òò¢Moleculon£€Research€Corp.€v.€CBS,€Inc.óó,€793€F.2d€1261,€1266,€229€¢USPQ2d£€805,€808€(Fed.€Cir.Ð 4„ Ð1986),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€479€U.S.€1030€(1987).€€Lough's€failure€to€monitor€the€use€of€his€prototypes€byÐ ^ Ðhis€acquaintances,€in€addition€to€the€lack€of€records€or€reports€from€those€acquaintances€concerningÏthe€¢operability£€of€the€devices,€compel€the€conclusion€that,€as€a€matter€of€law,€he€did€not€engage€inÏexperimental€use.€€Lough€in€effect€provided€the€prototype€seal€assemblies€to€members€of€the€publicÏfor€their€free€and€unrestricted€use.€€The€law€does€not€waive€statutory€requirements€for€inventors€ofÏlesser€sophistication.€€When€one€distributes€his€invention€to€members€of€the€public€underÏcircumstances€that€evidence€a€near€total€disregard€for€supervision€and€control€concerning€its€use,Ïthe€absence€of€these€minimal€indicia€of€experimentation€require€a€conclusion€that€the€invention€wasÏâ âin€public€use.€Ð Þ'.#& Ðà  àWe€conclude€that€the€jury's€determination€that€Lough's€use€of€the€invention€was€experimentalÏâ âso€as€to€defeat€the€assertion€of€public€use€was€incorrect€as€a€matter€of€law.€€The€court€thus€erred€inÏdenying€Brunswick's€¢JMOL£€motion€on€the€validity€of€claims€1„4€of€the€'775€patent€under€ðð€102(b).¢×ƒ×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòòòÚ  Ú5Ú  Úóó/óóÝ  Ý×  ×£€Ð d´ ÐÌà  àBrunswick€also€challenges€the€district€court's€failure€to€grant€¢JMOL£€or€a€new€trial€on€theÏissues€of€¢noninfringement£,€obviousness,€and€damages.€€Our€holding€that€the€patent€is€invalid€underÏðð€102(b),€as€a€practical€matter,€eliminates€the€need€to€consider€these€matters.€€Thus,€we€will€notÏaddress€them.€€We€are€of€course€mindful€of€the€Supreme€Court's€decision€in€òòCardinal€Chemical€Co.Ð ¦ö  Ðv.€Morton€International,€Inc.óó,€508€U.S.€83,€26€¢USPQ2d£€1721€(1993).€€In€òòCardinalóó,€the€Court€rejectedÐ €Ð Ðour€previous€practice€of€vacating€invalidity€judgments€following€a€determination€ofÏ¢noninfringement£.€€508€U.S.€at€102„03,€26€¢USPQ2d£€at€1730.€€In€doing€so,€the€Court€emphasized€theÏimportance€to€the€public€of€resolving€questions€of€patent€validity€and€the€need€to€prevent€partiesÏfrom€having€to€¢relitigate£€patent€validity.€€òòId.óó€at€99„101,€26€¢USPQ2d£€at€1729.€€Here,€however,€weÐ è8 Ðhave€determined€that€the€patent€is€invalid.€€We€are€not€reviving€a€patent€twice€previously€heldÏinvalid,€as€in€òòCardinalóó.€€Invalidity€is€a€complete€defense€to€infringement€and,€assuming€the€SupremeÐ œì ÐCourt€does€not€reverse€or€vacate€our€invalidity€holding,€a€statistically€unlikely€event,€our€decisionÐ v Æ Ðresolves€all€issues€that€are€meaningful€in€this€case.€€No€further€public€interest€is€served€by€ourÏresolving€an€infringement€question€after€a€determination€that€the€patent€is€invalid.€€We€thereforeÏdecline€to€consider€the€issue€of€infringement€as€well€as€that€of€obviousness.ÌÓ=€`ÝôÐXdÐd=Óà  àà@ss%ìàCONCLUSIONˆÌà  àThe€district€court's€denial€of€Brunswick's€motion€for€¢JMOL£€on€the€ground€of€invalidity€isÏreversed.€€The€award€of€damages€is€accordingly€vacated.ÌÌà@··(ìàCOSTSˆÌà  àNo€costs.Ìà@+ + ìàò òòòREVERSED„IN„PART€AND€VACATED„IN„PART€óóó ó€ˆÐ Zª ÐÌÐ  d Ðà@ìì*ìàÓÓÑ€ÑÑ€ ш¹Ó  ÓÔ€„`ÝXXô`ÝÔÔ€„ww„X„`ÝÔÔ  ÔUnited€States€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Federal€CircuitÐ í ÐÓ  ÓÔ€X!X„„wwÔÌÌÓ  ÓÌà@ ìà95„1266,€„1302,€„1314ˆÌÌÌà@88"ìàSTEVEN€G.€LOUGH,ˆÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPlaintiff„Appellee,ÌÌà@œœ)ìàv.ˆÌÌà@l l ìàBRUNSWICK€CORPORATION,€d/b/aˆÌà@??#ìàMERCURY€MARINE,ˆÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDefendant„Appellant.ÌÌÌÔ€ô?•õXX!ÔÔ€!ô ‘ õõô?•ÔÌÓÓPLAGER,€òòò òCircuit€Judgeóóó ó,€dissenting.Ð Î Ðà  àI€respectfully€dissent.€€In€my€view,€the€panel€majority€confuses€its€roleÏas€law„giver€and€law„reviewer€with€the€role€of€fact„weigher€and€fact„decider.€ÏThe€majority€and€I€agree€that€the€issue€is€not€whether€the€trial€court€appliedÏthe€wrong€law€(it€did€not),€or€whether€the€jury€was€wrongly€instructed€(it€wasÏnot).€€As€the€panel€majority€correctly€notes,€the€issue€is€whether,€on€theÏtotality€of€the€circumstances,€Mr.€Lough€was€engaged€in€"a€bona€fide€effort€toÏbring€his€invention€to€perfection,€or€to€ascertain€whether€it€will€answer€theÏpurpose€intended,"€òòò òCity€of€Elizabeth€v.€American€Nicholson€Pavement€Co.óóó ó,€97€U.S.Ð ø"H% Ð126,€137€(1877),€or€whether€he€was€engaged€in€selling€or,€on€the€facts€of€thisÏcase€oddly€enough€for€a€working€mechanic,€giving€away€his€invention€to€membersÏof€the€public.Ìà  àThis€is€not€a€contest€between€Evinrude€(Outboard€Marine€Ñ€"ÑCorporation)€andÏMercury€Marine€(Brunswick),€the€two€big€competitors€in€this€field,€to€see€who€canÐ ü)L%/ ÐÑ "Ñâ âÖ€ ÇÖâ  âÑ  Ñâ " âÑ = Ñâ "âÑ  Ñmarket€a€better€engine.€€€If€it€were,€we€could€expect€the€combination€ofÏengineering€and€legal€staffs€on€each€side€to€be€punctilious€about€observing€theÏniceties€of€our€prior€opinions€on€how€to€conduct€experiments€so€as€to€avoid€anyÏpossible€running€afoul€of€the€public€use€bar.€€No,€this€is€a€home„madeÏimprovement€by€a€man€with€only€a€high€school€education€who€worked€on€boats€andÏboat€engines,€including€his€own,€where€he€kept€encountering€the€problem€withÏthese€shaft€seals€that€Mercury€Marine€had€failed€to€solve.€€He€solved€it€by€trialÏand€error,€with€an€ingenious€bushing€of€his€own€design,€and,€on€his€grandfather'sÏmetal€lathe,€after€several€tries,€fashioned€a€half„dozen€prototype€seals€thatÏlooked€like€they€might€do€the€job.Ìà  àHe€put€one€in€his€own€boat,€one€in€the€boat€of€a€close€friend,€one€in€theÏboat€of€the€co„owner€of€the€marine€repair€shop€where€he€worked,€and€later€put€oneÏin€the€boat€of€a€customer€of€the€shop€who€was€having€considerable€problems€withÏhis€stern€drive€because€of€the€seal€difficulty.€€He€gave€two€to€mechanic€friendsÏat€another€marina€so€they€could€put€them€in€boats€having€the€same€troublesomeÏseal€problem,€with€the€understanding€they€would€be€used€to€test€the€seals€inÏdifferent€equipment.Ìà  àOf€course€it€would€have€been€better€for€all€concerned€(except€perhaps€forÏMercury€Marine)€if€Mr.€Lough€had€read€our€prior€opinions€before€he€became€anÏinventor.€€Then€he€might€have€kept€detailed€lab€notes€setting€out€the€problem€andÏthe€possible€solutions,€and€he€ØØwisely€would€have€obtained€written€confidentialityÏagreements€from€those€allowed€to€see€or€use€his€prototypes.€€Had€he€studied€ourÏcases€first,€he€no€doubt€would€have€developed€a€detailed€questionnaire€for€theÏpersons€to€whom€he€provided€the€seals,€and€he€would€have€insisted€on€periodicÏwritten€reports.€€In€other€words,€he€would€have€put€in€the€set€of€tight€controlsÏthe€majority€would€have€wanted.€€Instead,€he€did€what€seemed€appropriate€in€theÏsetting€in€which€he€worked:€he€waited€to€hear€from€his€test€cases€what€problemsÏmight€emerge,€and,€hearing€none,€at€least€none€that€convinced€him€he€was€on€theÏwrong€track,€he€accepted€some€friendly€advice€and€proceeded€to€patent€hisÏâ âinvention.Ð Ê,(:=C Ðà  àYes,€he€failed€to€conduct€his€testing,€his€experiments,€with€the€carefulÏâ âattention€we€lawyers,€with€our€clean€and€dry€hands,€have€come€to€prefer.€€But,Ïunder€all€the€facts€and€circumstances,€it€is€more€likely€than€not€that€he€wasÏtesting€and€perfecting€his€device,€rather€than€simply€making€it€available€gratisÏto€members€of€the€general€public€for€what€the€law€calls€"public€use.ðð€€The€mostÏthat€can€be€said€for€the€majority€view€is€that€this€is€a€close€question€under€theÏtotality€of€circumstances.€€The€ultimate€question€of€what€is€public€use€under€35ÏU.S.C.€ðð€102(b)€may€be€a€question€of€law,€but€in€a€given€case€in€which€the€issueÏis€whether€òòò òin€factóóó ó€the€challenged€use€was€experimental€(a€complete€answer€to€anÐ À  Ðinfringerððs€defense€based€on€a€ðð€102(b)€violation),€the€issue€involves€a€blendÏof€law€and€fact.€€This€issue,€unlike€claim€construction,€is€one€in€which€a€juryÏfully€participates.€€Thus€the€question€before€us€is€not€whether,€on€the€facts,Ïwe€are€persuaded€Lough€retained€all€the€control€a€well„designed€test€of€the€sealsÏwould€have€afforded,€but€whether€a€reasonable€jury,€on€all€the€evidence€beforeÏit,€could€have€arrived€at€the€conclusion€it€did.€€òòò òAllied€Colloids€Inc.€v.Ð &v ÐAmerican€Cyanamid€Co.óóó ó,€64€F.3d€1570,€1577,€35€¢USPQ2d£€1840,€1845€(Fed.€Cir.€1995)Ð ¢ò Ð(finding€a€grant€of€¢JNOV£€improper€because€ð ða€reasonable€jury€could€have€found,Ïapplying€the€correct€law,€that€there€was€not€a€public€use€bar€under€ðð€102(b)ðð).€ÏThe€jury€chose€to€accept€Loughððs€view€of€the€events,€and€under€that€view€thereÏwas€more€than€enough€evidence€to€support€a€jury€finding€that€he€was€testing€andÏperfecting€his€invention€during€much€of€the€period€leading€up€to€the€time€heÏapplied€for€his€patent.Ý‚ÿÿÿÝÔ€!X˜ãX õ!ô ‘ÔÔ€X`ÝXX!X˜ãÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑÈѢ׃#×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòòòÚ  Ú6Ú  Úóó/óóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€As€we€Ô€ôõXX`ÝÔÔ€!ô ‘ õõôÔsaid€inòòò ò€¢Manville£€Sales€Corp.€v.€Paramount€Systems,Ð "X* ÐInc.óóó ó,€917€F.2d€544,€551,€16€¢USPQ2d£€1587,€1592€(Fed.€Cir.€1990):€"When€durabilityÐ è#8, Ðin€an€outdoor€environment€is€inherent€to€the€purpose€of€an€invention,€thenÏfurther€testing€to€determine€the€inventionððs€ability€to€serve€that€purpose€willÏnot€subject€the€invention€to€a€section€102(b)€bar.ðð€(citing€òòò òCity€of€Elizabethóóó ó,Ð tÄ Ð97€U.S.€at€133„34).ÌÓ  Óà  àMany€of€the€cases€cited€by€the€majority€in€support€of€their€position€areÏcases€in€which€the€inventor€made€a€sale€or€an€offer€to€sell€the€product€priorÏto€the€critical€date.€€òòò òSee,€e.g.,€RCA€Corp.€v.€Data€General€Corp.óóó ó,€887€F.2dÐ  f  Ð1056,€12€¢USPQ2d£€1449€(Fed.€Cir.€1989);€òòò ò¢Sinskey£€v.€¢Pharmacia£€¢Ophthalmics£,€Inc.óóó ó,Ð ’â  Ð982€F.2d€494,€25€¢USPQ2d£€1290€(Fed.€Cir.€1992),€òòò òcert.€deniedóóó ó,€508€U.S.€912Ð ^  Ð(1993);€òòò òParagon€Podiatry€Lab.,€Inc.,€v.€¢KLM£€Lab.,€Inc.óóó ó,€984€F.2d€1182,€25Ð ŠÚ  ТUSPQ2d£€1561€(Fed.€Cir.€1993);€òòò òIn€re€Hamiltonóóó ó,€882€F.2d€1576,€11€¢USPQ2d£€1890Ð V Ð(Fed.€Cir.€1989).€€The€record€in€this€case€is€undisputed€that€Lough€made€noÏsales€of€his€invention€until€after€his€patent€application€was€filed.€€Nor€wasÏthis€simply€market€testing,€rather€than€product€testing,€as€in€òòò ò¢In£€re€Smithóóó ó,Ð F– Ð714€F.2d€1127,€218€¢USPQ£€976€(Fed.€Cir.€1983);€and€in€any€event,€that€was€partÏof€the€issue€presented€to€the€jury.€€€ÌÓ  Óà  àThere€is€no€dearth€of€cases€in€this€court€in€which€inventors€tested€theirÏproducts€in€various€ways€before€various€audiences,€and€in€which€we€have€held€thatÏsuch€testing,€when€it€made€sense€in€light€of€the€circumstances,€did€notÏconstitute€public€use€under€section€102(b).€€òòò òSee,€e.g.óóó ó,€òòò òTone€Bros.€v.€¢Sysco£Ð ¬ü& ÐCorp.óóó ó,€28€F.3d€1192,€31€¢USPQ2d£€1321€(Fed.€Cir.€1994)€(students€asked€to€testÐ (!x( Ðfunctional€features€of€spice€containers€prior€to€the€critical€date;€summaryÏjudgment€of€invalidity€reversed),€òòò òcert.€deniedóóó ó,€115€S.€Ct.€1356€(1995);€òòò ò¢TP£€Lab.,Ð $V, ÐInc.€v.€Professional€¢Positioners£,€Inc.óóó ó,€724€F.2d€965,€220€¢USPQ£€577€(Fed.€Cir.)Ð ‚%Ò . Ð(orthodontic€devices€tested€on€patients€prior€to€critical€date;€held€not€invalidÏeven€though€a€fee€paid€by€the€patients),€òòò òcert.€deniedóóó ó,€469€U.S.€826€(1984);òòò òÐ `(°#2 ТManville£€Sales€Corp.óóó ó,€917€F.2d€544,€16€¢USPQ2d£€1587€(testing€of€streetlight,Ð Ü),%4 Ðconditionally€approved€for€sale,€at€outdoor€site€held€experimental);€òòò òsee€alsoÐ X+¨&6 ТMoleculon£€Research€Corp.€v.€CBS,€Inc.óóó ó,€793€F.2d€1261,€229€¢USPQ£€805€(Fed.€Cir.Ð ° Ð1986)€(inventor€of€puzzle€showed€it€to€a€few€close€colleagues,€and€allowed€oneÏperson€to€use€it,€prior€to€the€critical€date;€held€not€invalid.),€òòò òcert.€deniedóóó ó,Ð ŽÞ Ð479€U.S.€1030€(1987).Ìà  àUnder€our€standard€of€review,€the€juryððs€decision€to€accept€Loughððs€versionÏof€the€case€is€not€properly€subject€to€reversal.€€The€trial€court€correctlyÏdenied€Brunswickððs€¢JMOL£€motion,€and€this€court€should€affirm€that€denial.Ìà  àThe€majority,€by€unilaterally€invalidating€the€patent€on€the€public€useÏissue,€confesses€that€it€thus€avoids€the€knotty€problem€of€how€to€deal€with€theÏinfringement€question,€especially€infringement€under€the€doctrine€of€equivalents.€ÏAlthough€I€share€my€colleaguesðð€unease€at€addressing€this€question€before€we€knowÏthe€Supreme€Court's€disposition€of€òòò òHilton„Davisóóó ó,€and€am€in€general€sympathy€withÐ j Ðthe€views€regarding€the€doctrine€of€equivalents€expressed€in€the€additionalÏremarks,€I€cannot€acquiesce€in€avoiding€the€question€on€the€grounds€offered€here.€ÏI€believe€it€is€improper€and€unjust€to€deny€Lough€his€victory€at€trial€on€theÏquestion€of€invalidity€under€section€102(b),€a€question€properly€put€to€andÏdecided€by€the€jury.€€(Whether€his€victory€can€be€sustained€on€the€issue€ofÏinfringement€is€not€here€decided,€and€I€offer€no€opinion€on€that€question.)ÌÐ  â2$ ÐÖ€$»ÖÑ  Ñà@` ` ìàUNITED€STATES€COURT€OF€APPEALS€FOR€THE€FEDERAL€CIRCUITˆÌÌà@66!ìà95„1266,„1302,„1314ˆÌÌà@ÌÌ"ìàSTEVEN€G.€LOUGH,ˆÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee,Ìà@ˆˆ)ìàv.ˆÌà@ttìàBRUNSWICK€CORPORATION,€d/b/aˆÌà@þþ#ìàMERCURY€MARINE,ˆÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellant.ÌÌòò¢Lourie£óó,€Circuit€Judge,€additional€remarks.Ð æ6 Ðà  àThere€is€another€reason€why€we€would€exercise€our€discretion€to€avoidÏdeciding€what€appears€to€be€an€unnecessary€issue€of€infringement,€even€though€weÏrecognize€the€value€of€a€complete€review€of€a€trial€court's€decision€by€anÏappellate€court€that€is€not€the€court€of€last€resort.€€That€is€the€currentÏinterim€uncertainty€concerning€certain€aspects€of€the€law€on€infringement.€€TheÏquestion€of€infringement€in€this€case€was€decided€by€the€jury€on€the€basis€ofÏboth€literal€infringement€and€infringement€under€the€doctrine€of€equivalents.ÏWere€we€to€face€these€issues,€we€might€well€reverse€the€judgment€on€the€issue€ofÏliteral€infringement€on€the€ground€that€the€upper€portion€of€the€Brunswick€upperÏseal€assembly€does€not€¢supportively£€receive€the€upper€end€of€the€gear€shiftÏshaft,€an€express€limitation€of€the€claims.€€The€question€of€infringement€byÏequivalence€would€then€become€critical.€€Jury€instruction€under€the€doctrine€ofÏÑ€%Ñequivalents,€however,€was€rather€limited€and€preceded€our€recent€in€banc€decisionÏin€òòHilton€Davis€Chemical€Co.€v.€Warner„¢Jenkinson£€Co.óó,€62€F.3d€1512,€35€¢USPQ2d£Ð B'’"2 Ð1641€(Fed.€Cir.€1995)€(in€banc),€òòcert.€grantedóó,€116€S.€Ct.€1014€(1996).€€ReviewÐ ¤(ô#4 Ðof€the€equivalence€finding€would€therefore€be€problematical.€€à x à€€The€SupremeÐ *V%6 ÐCourt€has€granted€certiorari€in€òòHilton€Davisóó€and€will€hear€the€case€in€its€nextÐ h+¸&8 Ðterm.€€The€Supreme€Court€has€also€recently€unanimously€affirmed€our€in€bancÏdecision€in€òò¢Markman£€v.€¢Westview£€Instruments,€Inc.óó,€52€F.3d€967,€34€¢USPQ2d£€1321Ð ,.|)<m ÐÑ%Ñâ %âÑ = Ñâ %âÑ  Ñ(Fed.€Cir.€1995)€(in€banc),€in€which€we€held€that€ØØconstruing€the€scope€of€a€claimÏis€a€matter€for€the€court,€rather€than€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òò¢Markman£€v.€¢Westview£Ð b ÐInstruments,€Inc.óó,€116€S.€Ct.€1384,€38€¢USPQ2d£€1461€(1996).€€The€Court€based€itsÐ tÄ Ðdecision€in€part€on€a€belief€that€"[¢t]he£€construction€of€written€instruments€isÏone€of€those€things€that€judges€often€do€and€are€likely€to€do€better€than€jurorsÏunburdened€by€training€in€exegesis.€.€.€.€€The€judge,€from€his€training€andÏdiscipline,€is€.€.€.€more€likely€to€be€right,€in€performing€such€a€duty,€than€aÏjury€can€be€expected€to€be."€€òòId.óó€at€1395€(citing€òòParker€v,€¢Hulme£óó,€18€F.€¢Cas£.Ð ^®  Ð1138€(No.€10,740)€(CC€ED€Pa.€1849)).€€Ìà  àThus,€it€is€entirely€conceivable€that€the€Court,€consistent€with€itsÏdecision€in€òò¢Markman£óó,€could€hold€that€determination€of€the€scope€of€a€claim€beyondÐ „Ô  Ðits€literal€language€for€purposes€of€determining€infringement€under€the€doctrineÏof€equivalents€is€also€a€matter€for€the€judge,€not€the€jury.€€It€could€do€so€onÏthe€basis€that€interpreting€a€claim€arguably€contrary€to€the€statutoryÏrequirement€for€precision€set€forth€in€35€U.S.C.€ðð€112€requires€the€discernmentÏof€a€judge,€tantamount€to€an€equitable€reformation€of€the€patent.€€Deciding€theÏinfringement€phase€of€this€appeal,€when€it€is€not€clearly€necessary,€would€thusÏnot€be€prudent.€€Such€would€not€be€the€case,€of€course,€were€the€infringementÏquestion€to€be€¢dispositive£€of€the€appeal,€but,€as€indicated€above,€it€is€notÏhere.€ÌÌÌ