Interference No. 104,403
was spurred into filing the patent application by the belief that a third
party had disclosed the invention to the senior party.
However, even though an inference of suppression and
concealment has been raised, an inventor’s activities during the delay
period may excuse the delay, e.g., he may have worked during the
delay period to improve and perfect the invention disclosed in the
patent application. Id at 952, 195 USPQ mat 705; Young v. Dworkin,
489 F.2d 1277, 1281 n.3, 180 USPQ 388, 391-92 n.3 (CCPA 1974);
Frey v. Wagner, 87 F.2d 212, 215, 32 USPQ 239, 242 (CCPA 1937).
These improvements, however, must be reflected in the final patent
application. Id. The reason an inventor can excuse an unreasonable
delay if he was working to perfect the invention is that the law does not
punish an inventor for working to perfect his invention before giving it
to the public. Frey v. Wagner, 87 F.2d at 215, 32 USPQ at 242. See
also, Young v. Dworkin, 489 F.2d at 1281 n.3, 180 USPQ at 391-92
n.3.
In addition, if the junior party proves that he renewed activity on
the invention before the earliest date to which the senior party entered
the field, and proceeded diligently to filing his patent application, he
may rely on the date of renewed activity to establish priority. Paulik v.
Razkalla, 760 F.2d at 1273, 226 USPQ at 225 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
30
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007