Interference No. 104,403
filing the patent application. Rosenthal testifies (Rosenthal record
page 41) that he had a telephone conversation with Kenneth Conley
on October 31, 1993 in which he became convinced that Conley had
disclosed his invention to senior party Magee. Rosenthal also testifies
(Rosenthal record page 32) that he began preparation on his patent
application in November 1993. Had it not been for the telephone
conversation with Conley, it is not clear when the junior party would
have started preparing his patent application. As such, it appears that
the junior party was spurred into filing the patent application. In this
regard, we note that spurring may be stimulated by knowledge, not
only of the issuance of a patent, but also of another party’s possession
of the inventive concept. See Woofter v. Carlson, 367 F.2d at 446, 151
USPQ at 415 (CCPA 1966).
Finally, in our view, the delay of two years and five months is a
sufficiently long period to raise an inference of suppression and
concealment. See Shindelar v. Holdeman, 628 F.2d 1337, 1342-43,
207 USPQ 112, 117 (CCPA 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984
(1981)(two-year and five month delay between reduction to practice
and the filing of an application is prima facie unreasonable). This
inference is strengthened by the evidence that the junior party
intentionally kept the invention confidential and that the junior party
29
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007