Interference No. 103,197
invention."57
Consequently, we construe Morrison and Yue's position to be
that they are entitled to prevail on either of two grounds:
(a) an actual reduction to practice prior to Buschmann's
benefit date without abandoning, suppressing, or concealing or
(b) conception prior to Buschmann's benefit date coupled with
diligence during the critical period starting just before that
date and ending on Morrison's actual filing date of May 29,
1990. However, in view of Buschmann's concession that
Morrison achieved an actual reduction to practice on September
19, 1989, the critical period ends on that date rather than on
Morrison's filing date. In our view, the eight-month interval
between these dates is not long enough to raise a rebuttable
presumption of suppression or concealment. Compare Schindelar
v. Holdeman, 628 F.2d 1337, 1342-43, 207 USPQ 112, 117 (CCPA
1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984, 210 USPQ 776 (1981) (two-
year and five-month delay between reduction to practice and
filing of application prima facie unreasonable).
Inasmuch as Morrison’s corrected preliminary statement
identifies Dr. Morrison and Dr. Yue as joint inventors of the
Morr.Open.Br. 69.57
- 35 -
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007