were both received before the critical date, and the parties had a definite agreement before the critical date. See id. at 1432, 43 USPQ2d at 1930. Furthermore, in Pfaff, there were no facts in dispute, leaving only the legal issue of whether section 102(b) invalidates the patent. See id. at 1433, 43 USPQ2d at 1931. Finally, there was no doubt in Pfaff that what was offered for sale was the device of the later-issued patent. By contrast, in the instant case, the parties dispute the primary factual issue — that is, whether Mosler was merely a potential licensee of legal rights, or, rather, a potential customer of devices. The district court found that Mosler was only a potential licensee. Cf. Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1267, 229 USPQ 805, 809 (Fed.Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Mas-Hamilton asserted before the district
holding that the one challenging the patent must in part show that the subject matter of the sale or offer to sell fully anticipated the claimed invention or would have rendered it obvious by its addition to the prior art holding that the moving party must show prior art references which alone or combined with other references would have rendered the invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention holding a determination that an invention was onsale within the meaning of the statute requires that a sale be operable the complete invention claimed be embodied in or obvious from the device offered for sale and the sale or offer be primarily for profit rather than for experimental purposes holding a technical term used in a patent document is interpreted as having the meaning that it would be given by persons experienced in the field of the invention unless it is apparent from the patent and the prosecution history that the inventor used the term with a different meaning holding that an assignment or sale of rights in the invention and potential patent rights is not a sale of the invention within the meaning of section 102b