Interference No. 103,446
Specifically, Martinez argues that the February 1986 tests by
Dzikowski of the plaques prepared by Marsh at Sanns' direction
constitute an actual reduction to practice by Sanns (Martinez
Brief p. 7). Based on the date argued by Martinez to
represent the date of Sanns' earliest actual reduction to
practice, Martinez argues that the time from actually reducing
to practice the invention of Count 1 until filing the Sanns
application was so long and unreasonable as to raise an
inference of abandonment, suppression or concealment by Sanns.
More specifically, Sanns argues that in light of the
above-described plaque preparation and testing, considered
with the stipulations of the parties concerning the mica
filler used and the nature of the polymer in which the filler
was dispersed, we should find Sanns actually reduced to
practice an embodiment within the count of this interference
not later than July 21, 1988, the date of the stipulation
concerning the nature of the mica used. Martinez argues in
his brief that the activity in February and March 1986 by
Marsh and Dzikowski on behalf of Sanns constituted an actual
reduction to practice of an embodiment within the count
(Martinez Brief p.8). Martinez concedes the work performed on
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007