Interference No. 103,345
invention in existence which can be abandoned, suppressed, or
concealed").
As for the second model, which was constructed in
February 1990 with a worm gear mechanism, Staples testified
that this model "demonstrated that a worm gear mechanism was
suitable for moving the bodies in opposite directions upon
rotation of the threaded member." We assume for the sake of24
argument that this model satisfies all of the limitations of
the count. Roberge contends that abandonment, suppression, or
concealment is demonstrated by the absence of any corroborated
activity during the thirty-one month period between February
1990, when the second model was constructed, and September
1992, when Jeffrey Staples met with Lambert to discuss the
preparation of a patent application. In support of his
contention that a thirty-one month period of unexplained
inactivity is sufficient to establish abandonment,
suppression, or concealment, Roberge cites Engelhardt v. Judd,
369 F.2d 408, 151 USPQ 732 (CCPA 1966) (two years and three
months); Shindelar v. Holdeman, 628 F.2d 1337, 207 USPQ 112
(CCPA 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 (1981); and Young v.
Staples Supp. Aff., SR 6, para. 6.24
- 23 -
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007