Interference No. 103,446
persuasion. Nevertheless, on the facts before us, in this
particular case, we also find that the eleven months between
Sanns actual reduction to practice of an embodiment within the
count and the filing of an application for patent, is not so
long or unreasonable as to raise an inference of abandonment,
suppression or concealment.
Notwithstanding our conclusion above, Martinez could
still prevail if he established that other evidence in this
record proved that Sanns reduced his invention to practice
before the July 21, 1988, stipulation date and proved that the
time between that earlier reduction to practice and Sanns'
filing date was so long as to raise an inference that Sanns
abandoned, suppressed or concealed his invention. Martinez
has, in fact, argued that the February 1986 plaques prepared
by Marsh after testing by Dzikowski established the plaques
had a DOI within 10 DOI units of similarly painted steel,
constituted an actual reduction to practice of the subject
matter of Count 1.
Nonetheless, we have already held that Sanns did not
prove that he had a recognition or appreciation in 1986 of the
limitations in Count 1 regarding both the particle size of the
mica and the aspect ratio of the mica. Absent such
recognition by Sanns, we have also held that the actual
reduction to practice by Sanns, based on the work performed in
21
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007