[110] 48 USPQ2d 1641 (S.Ct. 1998).

[111] King Instruments Corp. v. Otari Corp., 767 F.2d 853, 226 USPQ 402 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

[112] Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 52 USPQ2d 1294.

[113] RCA Corp v. Data General Corp., 12 USPQ2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1989), followed in Zacharin v. United States , 55 USPQ2d 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

[114] In re Blaisdell, 242 F.2d 779, 113 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1957).

[115] TRW Financial Systems, Inc. v. Unisys Corp., 835 F. Supp. 994 (E.D. Mich. 1993).

[116] In re Dybel, 524 F.2d 1393, 187 USPQ 593 (CCPA 1975).

[117] 59 USPQ2d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

[118] Article 2 of the UCC adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws provides a model for sales law throughout the United States. Most states have adopted it substantially as written but there are some variations in detail between different states. The UCC contains no definition of the term “offer”. At common law, however, an essential requirement of an offer is that the party making it is willing to become legally bound by it if the offer is accepted. As such, an offer may be distinguished from an invitation to deal. Under the UCC, a contract for sale of goods may be formed inter alia when there is an offer and an acceptance of that offer. (Article 2-204) It should be noted that under Article 2-305, where the parties so agree a contract can be formed even though there is no agreed price. It therefore seems to follow that in such circumstances it is not necessary for a price to be quoted for an “offer” to trigger the on sale bar.

Article 2 is currently in the process of being revised, mainly so as to take account of the development of e-commerce and the adoption of the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (e-sign) and the Commissioners own model state law, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). However, other changes are likely to be made including a provision that it is possible to form a contract even though the acceptance may include terms different from or additional to those of the offer. (Proposed new Article 2-206(3)). It is not clear what effect, if any this may have on the question of what constitutes an offer for sale so as to trigger the on-sale bar.

[119] Kock v. Quaker Oats Co., 681 F.2d 649, 215 USPQ 200 (9th Cir. 1982). In general a similar analysis of experimental use issues is made in "on sale" bar cases as in prior use cases as discussed above.

[120] In re Caveny and Moody, 761 F.2d 671, 226 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

[121] 46 USPQ2d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

[122] 51 USPQ2d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

[123] 51 USPQ2d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1999).