Interference No. 104,403
of the lens sheet for packaging was just one of the other objects of the
invention listed in the specification. Therefore, we are not convinced
that a lens system that is not suitable for packaging or graphic uses is
a lens system which does not work for its intended purpose.
In addition, we are not convinced that the photographs of
Exhibits 2141 and 2118 (Rosenthal Record pages 16 and 43) can be
utilized to determine the size of the lens system as the senior party has
not directed our attention to any evidence which establishes that the
photographs of Exhibits 2141 and 2118 are of the same scale. Without
establishing that the photographs are of the same scale, no meaningful
comparison between the two photographs can be made.
In view of the foregoing, it is our determination that the junior
party has established that he reduced the invention of the count to
practice on August 14, 1992.2
Suppression and Concealment
The senior party has raised the issue of suppression and
concealment (Magee’s Opening Brief pages 9 to 11). We note that the
burden of establishing suppression and concealment is on the party
2 We need not address Rosenthal’s argument that it conceived of the invention
in 1982, since based on the record before us, Rosenthal has sufficiently demonstrated a
reduction to practice of the invention prior to Magee. See 35 USC § 102(g).
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007