any inferences.
At first glance, it would appear that this case is analogous
to Sletzinger v. Lincoln, 410, F.2d 808, 161 USPQ 725 (CCPA
1969), where a determination was made that a period of almost two
weeks (from June 27 to July 9) was not toolong for inventors to
review a draft application. In Sletzinger, however, three
inventors reviewed the draft application. Here, there was only
one. More importantly, in Sletzinger, evidence was presented to
excuse the inference that the amount of time to review the draft
application was excessive. Specifically, Judge Rich, speaking
for the CCPA stated:
That the total period of review by the inventors was not
unreasonable in view of the length of the application and
the nature of the technical subject matter appears clear
from the affidavit of the Patent Department Section Head ...
(Emphasis added). 410 F.2d at 812, 161 USPQ at 728.
In Sletzinger, the Patent Department Section Head provided
testimony regarding how long it would take a single inventor to
review an application. The Patent Department Section Head
additionally explained that the inventors were aware of the
importance of careful review. The Patent Department Section Head
also stated that the application was lengthy and the subject
matter technically difficult.
In contrast, Chern has failed to direct us to evidence that
would account for the approximately one month period of time
duringwhich Wen-Foo Chern had the draft application in his
Possession. Based on the record, there is no demonstration that
- 25 -
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007