Interference No. 104,190
As noted above, it is our determination that the
December, 1991 work by Rydell was not a reduction to practice
of the subject matter of the interference. Additionally, we
have determined that if the work by Rydell can be considered
to have been a reduction to practice, the junior party has not
provided evidence to rebut the inference of abandonment,
suppression or concealment raised by the substantial time
period between the reduction to practice and the filing of the
benefit application.
The Parins reply brief has a section discussing
supposed public policy principles and equity. It must be
noted that Slater as senior party does not have any burden of
proof, at least until Parins can overcome Slater’s effective
filing date. Unless Parins can overcome the effective filing
date, any
action or inaction by Slater is simply immaterial. Slater has
nothing to prove.
Estoppel Argument
30
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007