earlier, Lakes has been accorded benefit for the purpose of
priority of its initial application.
19. A summary of events in chronological date order
relevant to the issue before us is as follows:
a. 17 September 1991--Morrison's alleged actual
reduction to practice.
b. 28 August 1992--Lakes files application.
c. 28 June 1993--Morrison files application.
20. Lakes maintains that "[e]ven if Morrison can
establish *** [an] actual reduction to practice, Morrison ***
suppressed or concealed the invention by the unreasonable
delay between the alleged [actual] reduction to practice [on
17 September 1991] and the time Morrison filed the patent
application [on 28 June 1993]" (Paper 49, page 16).
21. There is little, if any, evidence in the record as
to when specific events, if any, occurred during the 21-month,
11-day period between Morrison's alleged actual reduction to
practice and the filing of the Morrison application.
22. Additional facts, as needed, are set out in the
"Discussion" portion of this opinion.
B. The issue
Assuming arguendo that Morrison has established by a
preponderance of the evidence that it actually reduced to
practice on 17 September 1991, the issue becomes whether Lakes
has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Morrison
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007