Interference No. 103,446
abandonment, suppression or concealment of an actual reduction
to practice.
Moreover, as the party urging that Sanns
deliberately concealed his invention, Martinez bears the
burden of providing proof of specific intent where, as here,
the time period between reducing the invention to practice and
filing an application for patent is not unreasonable and does
not raise an inference of intent to suppress or conceal.
Peeler, 535 F.2d at 653, 190 USPQ at 122; Dewey v. Lawton, 347
F.2d 629, 146 USPQ 187, 189 (CCPA 1965). We find, on this
record, that Martinez has not met his burden of persuasion on
this issue.
MARTINEZ' MOTION TO STRIKE
In Paper Number 44, Martinez has moved to strike the
portions of Sanns' brief which allege that Martinez derived
the invention of Count 1 from Sanns. As correctly noted by
Martinez in his motion, Sanns has not alleged derivation by
Martinez in his preliminary statement as required by 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.625 and therefore it may not properly be raised before us
in Sanns' brief. 37 C.F.R. § 1.655.
Accordingly, Martinez' motion is herein DISMISSED as
moot.
JUDGMENT
24
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007