Interference No. 104,190
including review in patent department and disclosure of
invention to customers; such activities do not support a
finding of abandonment, suppression or concealment); and 3)
the causative factors for the resumption of activities toward
filing an application or commercialization of the invention--
so-called "spurring"; see Shindelar v. Holdeman, 628 F.2d
1337, 1342 n.9, 207 USPQ 112, 116 n.9 (CCPA 1980), cert.
denied, 451 U.S. 984 (1981)(while spurring into filing an
application is not essential for finding suppression, that is
not to say that the presence of spurring is not relevant to
the issue of suppression or concealment). The subjective
intent of the inventor is also relevant, but a subjective
intent not to abandon the invention cannot overcome strong
objective evidence of abandonment, suppression or
concealment. See Peeler at 653, 190 USPQ at 122.
Our findings are as follows: After the living dog
test on December 19, 1991, the prototype PX-10 was retired,
and as far as O’Brien was aware, the PX-10 hooked scissors
were not discussed again. The junior party has been accorded
benefit of
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007