Interference No. 102,622
ABANDONMENT, SUPPRESSION AND CONCEALMENT
On June 5, 1992, Rivetti et al. filed notice that
they intended to argue that Oates abandoned, suppressed or
concealed an actual reduction to practice as required by 37
C.F.R. § 1.632. See Paper Number 41.
Nevertheless, "without an actual reduction to
practice there is no invention in existence which can be
abandoned, suppressed, or concealed." Peeler v. Miller, 535
F.2d at 651, 190 USPQ at 120. Because Oates has not presented
any evidence of priority based on an actual reduction to
practice, it is Rivetti et al.'s burden to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that Oates abandoned, suppressed
or concealed her invention within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
102(g). Gallagher v. Smith, 206 F.2d 939, 99 USPQ 132 (CCPA
1953).
We agree with Oates for reasons expressed in her
reply brief at page 4 thereof that Rivetti et al. have failed
to prove that Oates actually reduced to practice an embodiment
within the Count at a time prior to Rivetti et al.'s Italian
application benefit date of March 4, 1988.
JUDGMENT
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007