inference of an intent to suppress or conceal. Hence, on this
record, we find and conclude that the 21-month, 11-day period is
"unreasonable" and that Morrison was under a burden to rebut the
inference of suppression or concealment which results from a
finding of "unreasonable" delay. Morrison has failed to do so.
d.
Morrison argues that Lakes did not enter the field
during the 21-month, 11-day delay (Paper 49, page 36; Paper 51,
page 11). Morrison's argument is factually flawed because it is
manifest that Lakes entered the field by filing a patent
application on 28 August 1992--which is between 17 September 1991
and 28 June 1993.
e.
Morrison correctly notes that there is no evidence that
Morrison was spurred into filing an application by activity of
Lakes. However, as noted in Correge v. Murphy, spurring is not a
requirement for a holding of suppression or concealment. Failure
to timely file a patent application, or otherwise make the
invention known to the public however, is a significant factor.
On this record, Morrison has not satisfactorily explained how it
made an effort to make the invention available to the public
until the filing of a patent application on a date after Lakes
had filed its patent application.
- 18 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007