Interference No. 104,290
his testimony. LR128, line 24. We are in full agreement that
the experiments were of an exploratory nature and were not
intended or designed to be a reduction to practice of the subject
matter of the interference.
In summary, it is our determination that the series of
experiments from June through October 1993 were not a reduction
to practice of the subject matter of the count.
Abandonment, Suppression or Concealment
Edwards raises the issue of abandonment, suppression,
or concealment on the part of LeVeen. As noted above, we have
determined that LeVeen failed to reduce the invention to practice
by successful testing of the subject matter of the count in the
June through October time frame. Accordingly, we do not reach
the issue of the alleged abandonment, suppression, or conceal
ment. "[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).
31
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007