Interference No. 104,190
Abandonment, Suppression or Concealment by the Junior Party
Although we have determined that the junior party
has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that
the subject matter of the count was reduced to practice, for
the sake of completeness we will consider the question of
whether the junior party has abandoned, suppressed, or
concealed the invention within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
102(g) as argued by the senior party. For purposes of this
determination, we must assume, contrary to the evidence, that
the junior party actually reduced to practice the subject
matter of the count. "[W]ithout an actual reduction to
practice there is no invention in existence which can be
abandoned, suppressed, or concealed." Peeler v. Miller, 535
F.2d 647, 651, 190 USPQ 117, 120 (CCPA 1976).
The question of the loss of a right to a patent due
to suppression or concealment arises under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g).
The policy behind § 102(g) is to encourage prompt disclosure
of the invention to the public by an inventor after he or she
has reduced it to practice. The longer the delays, the
greater is the risk that he or she will be found to have
24
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007