Interference No. 103,446
behalf of Sanns in 1986 and Sanns' memorandum of invention
lack evidence of any appreciation of the limitation of the
count with respect to the particle size of the mica or its
aspect ratio (Martinez Brief p.8). Nevertheless, Martinez
urge that we should accept Sanns' uncorroborated testimony
that he had determined both the particle size and aspect ratio
for WG-2 mica in 1985 or 1986. Martinez urges that based on a
February 1986 actual reduction to practice, Sanns took more
than 40 months to file their first patent application on the
subject matter of the count. Martinez argues that the time
period is sufficiently long as to be "unreasonable" and,
therefore, raises an inference that Sanns abandoned,
suppressed or concealed his invention within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 102(g).
OPINION
It is by now well-settled that an actual reduction
to practice may not be established nunc pro tunc. Langer v.
Kaufman, 465 F2d. 915, 919-20, 175 USPQ 172, 174 (CCPA 1972);
Heard v. Burton, 333 F2d. 239, 243-44, 142 USPQ 97, 100 (CCPA
1964). Equally well-settled is the prerequisite that the
actual reduction to practice must include a contemporaneous
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007