MKC wanted a broader claim construction than it got. As the CAFC pointed out -

The specification underscores the correctness of the trial court's construction: a "keyboard is positioned in a concavity or depression in the housing."

The accused devices, joysticks and a Nokia phone, did not have their keyboards in a dip as claimed. MKC couldn't argue anything substantive for doctrine of equivalents, so that went nowhere as well.

Thomas Gambaro developed an early prototype, the Cherry Model 5, much like what he was later to patent, which he showed to potential investors, and a lady friend (no cherry jokes, please).

The district court found that MKC admitted that the Cherry Model 5 embodied the '477 patent and the '322 patent as of February 22, 1987. Even assuming that MKC admitted that the Cherry Model 5 embodied each claim of the '477 and '322 patents—a question this court need not decide—this court concludes that there was no "public use" under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Therefore, the district court's grant of summary judgment of invalidity for public use was improper.

Backdrop on the intricacies of public use -

Public use includes “any [public] use of [the claimed] invention by a person other than the inventor who is under no limitation, restriction or obligation of secrecy to the inventor.” In re Smith, 714 F.2d 1127, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333, 336 (1881)). In Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., the Supreme Court noted that both the "on sale" and "public use" bars were based on the same policy considerations. Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 64 (1998). Specifically, "[t]he [Supreme] Court noted that both the on sale and public use bars of § 102(b) stem from the same 'reluctance to allow an inventor to remove existing knowledge from public use.'" Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 424 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quote from Pfaff, 525 U.S. at 64).

"The classical standard for assessing the public nature of a use was established in [Egbert v. Lippman, 104 U.S. 333 (1881)]. In Egbert, the inventor of a corset spring gave two samples of the invention to a lady friend, who used them for more than two years before the inventor applied for a patent." Invitrogen, 424 F.3d at 1382. Although the inventor in Egbert did not obtain any commercial advantage, the Court determined that the invention had been used for its intended purpose for over a decade without limitation or confidentiality requirements. Thus, even though not in public view, the invention was in public use. Id. In Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu, 307 U.S. 5 (1939), the Court found "the ordinary use of a machine or the practice of a process in a factory in the usual course of producing articles for commercial purposes is a public use." Id. at 20. On the other hand, in TP Laboratories, Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc., 724 F.2d 965 (Fed. Cir. 1984), this court found that premature installation of an inventive orthodontic appliance in several patients without a written confidentiality agreement was not a public use due to the expectation of confidentiality inherent in the dentist-patient relationship.

The early demos were not of use, because Gambaro's Cherry Model 5 wasn't hooked to anything. The one working demo was for typing tests, but that was after the critical date.

Thus, the Cherry Model 5 was never in public use. All disclosures, except for the one-time typing test, only provided a visual view of the new keyboard design without any disclosure of the Cherry Model 5's ability to translate finger movements into actuation of keys to transmit data. In essence, these disclosures visually displayed the keyboard design without putting it into use. In short, the Cherry Model 5 was not in public use as the term is used in section 102(b) because the device, although visually disclosed and only tested one time with a NDA signed by the typing tester, was never connected to be used in the normal course of business to enter data into a system.

The district court completely misunderstood terminal disclaimers -

On another issue, the district court determined that Mr. Gambaro had admitted that the '322 patent was invalid for obviousness by filing a terminal disclaimer to make the '322 coterminous with the '477 patent. The district court reasoned that this filing conceded that the '322 patent was obvious in light of the '477 patent. Motionless Keyboard, 2005 WL 1113818, at *29. A terminal disclaimer simply is not an admission that a later-filed invention is obvious. Quad Envtl. Tech. Corp. v. Union Sanitary Dist., 946 F.2d 870, 874 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Thus, the trial court erred on this point and the '322 patent is not invalid due to obviousness.

So, the patents went uninfringed here, but live to haunt those who would put their keyboards in a hollow.