Interference No. 103,446
the invention. Lutzker v. Plet, 843 F.2d 1364, 6 USPQ2d 1370
(Fed. Cir. 1988); Correge v. Murphy, 705 F.2d 1326, 217 USPQ
753 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Shindelar v. Holdeman, 628 F.2d 1337,
207 USPQ 112 (CCPA 1980); Horwath v. Lee, 564 F.2d 948, 195
USPQ 701 (CCPA 1977); Peeler v. Miller, 535 F.2d 647, 190 USPQ
117 (CCPA 1976); Steinberg v. Seitz, 517 F.2d 1359, 186 USPQ
1359 (CCPA 1975); Young v. Dworkin, 489 F.2d 1277, 180 USPQ
388 (CCPA 1974); Brokaw v. Vogel, 429 F.2d 476, 166 USPQ 428
(CCPA 1970); English v. Heredero, 200 USPQ 597 (Bd.Pat.Int.
1978). While the question of whether or not Sanns abandoned,
suppressed or concealed his invention is an ultimate
conclusion of law, it is based on the particular facts of this
case just as every question of suppression or concealment is
founded on the particular facts of each case. Brokaw, 429
F.2d at 480, 166 USPQ at 430, 431.
Assuming that Martinez satisfies his burden of
persuasion and establishes that the time period involved under
the facts of this case was prima facie unreasonably long,
Sanns may still overcome the presumption by showing sufficient
activity during the time period involved towards perfecting or
improving his invention or other activities which "excuse,
explain or justify the delay." Young, 489 F.2d at 1281, 180
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007