LEVIEN V. KATAYAMA et al. - Page 25


                 Interference No. 103,587                                                                                                            

                 program was actually used by Raphael Levien to produce his images.  As noted by the senior                                          
                 party, the program was under the sole control of the inventor.  Jack Levien’s knowledge of the                                      
                 specific program of LX-10 first occurred in 1996 when the exhibit was made, and this is long                                        
                 after the alleged dates of actual reduction to practice in 1987.                                                                    
                          Whereas Levien has not established that it was first to conceive, the issue of reasonable                                  
                 diligence on the part of the junior party is moot.                                                                                  
                          Although we are of the opinion that the junior party has not established its case for                                      
                 priority, we are of the opinion that the activities of Raphael Levien directed toward his alleged                                   
                 conception, actual reduction to practice and diligence occurred in 1987.  It is considered that the                                 
                 year is fixed by the celebration of his brother Alex’s sixteenth birthday on November 30, 1987.                                     
                 The image LX-9 shows Alex at the celebration holding a birthday cake with the number “16”                                           
                 thereon.                                                                                                                            
                          Even if the party Levien had established an actual reduction to practice prior to its filing                               
                 date, it is considered that Levien would not be entitled to prevail because there is an                                             
                 unreasonable delay of over two years between the alleged actual reduction to practice in                                            
                 November 1987 and the filing of its patent application in February 1990 which raises an                                             
                 inference of suppression and concealment, and because that inference has not been rebutted.                                         
                          As stated in Shindelar v. Holdeman, 628 F.2d 1337, 207 USPQ 112 (CCPA 1980) and                                            
                 Peeler v. Miller, 535 F.2d 647, 190 USPQ 117 (CCPA 1976), an unreasonable delay between                                             
                 actual reduction to practice and the filing of an application (constructive reduction to practice)                                  
                 may raise an inference of intent to suppress the invention.  A certain specified length of time may                                 
                 not be considered per se unreasonable, but rather each case involving the issue of suppression or                                   
                 concealment must be considered on its own particular set of facts.  Shindelar v. Holdeman,                                          
                 628 F.2d at 1343, 207 USPQ at 117.                                                                                                  

                                                                         25                                                                          



Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007