Interference No. 104,190
application Serial No. 08/369,379 with its January 6, 1995
filing
date. Thus, the record shows a period of inactivity of a
little over 36 months. Under applicable precedent, this time
period is sufficient to trigger the inference of abandonment,
suppression
or concealment. Accordingly, we hold that the burden has
shifted to the junior party to rebut the inference with
appropriate evidence.
An inference of suppression or concealment may be
overcome with evidence that the reason for the delay was to
perfect the invention. Lutzker v. Plet, 843 F.2d 1364, 1367,
6 USPQ2d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1988)(citing Dewey v.
Lawton, 347 F.2d 629, 632, 146 USPQ 187, 189-90 (CCPA
1965)), which permitted "testing and refinement" of the
invention for more than one year after reduction to practice;
and Schnick v. Fenn, 227 F.2d 935, 941-42, 125 USPQ 567,
573-74 (CCPA 1960), which per-mitted a delay of about eleven
months after reduction to practice while "continuing 'the
development of the best design'" in further perfecting the
27
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007