Interference No. 103,587
requires the control of the size of pluralities of dots, not wavy lines. WAVY.BAS produced
wavy or jagged line artifacts, which would be unacceptable for normal image reproduction.
Concerning the second alleged actual reduction to practice, Katayama takes the position
that even if it is assumed that the image shown in LX-9 was generated on November 30, 1987,
the only evidence that it was screened in accordance with the method of count 2 is from the
inventor himself. Jack Levien testified that the image was taken with a digital camera which was
hooked up to the computer and printer. Although Jack Levien says the image was screened,
there is no evidence that he knew what program was used to screen the image. The image itself
(LX-9) does not make clear what kind of screening was performed.
Katayama contends that there is a delay of two years or more between the date of alleged
actual reduction to practice and the filing date of the application which creates an inference of
suppression and concealment. It is urged that Levien has not rebutted this inference by
establishing a justifiable excuse for the delay. The senior party avers that Levien offers no
evidence such as financial statements, or a statement by his father that the inventor lacked funds
to file a patent application during the time in question. Even if the inventor had no funds,
Katayama contends no case supports the proposition that lack of funds is a sufficient excuse for
an unusual delay in filing a patent application. Whatever funds Levien had were admittedly
directed either to commercializing Dot 1 or Dot 2 instead of being applied to filing a patent
application directed toward Dot 2, and neither of these diversions of funds is a justification for
the delay in filing an application on Dot 2. Katayama asserts that Jack Levien purchased state-
of-the-art equipment for his son’s lab, and submits there is no evidence of whether or not the
father would finance the filing of a patent application onc e his son purportedly reduced the
invention to practice. The senior party contends that there was no thought of patenting Dot 2
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007