Interference No. 104,403
Activities during the delay
The junior party argues :
It is clear that by a date far earlier than any alleged date
of Magee, Rosenthal had not only conceived of but had
also reduced the invention of the Count to practice;
namely, by at least August 14, 1992. Furthermore,
between that date and the date Rosenthal filed his patent
application, Rosenthal has established continuous
activity, including separate acts of further corroboration of
his reduction to practice on a number of dates between
August 14, 1992, and Rosenthal’s filing date of January
18, 1995, as well as additional reductions to practice and
perfection of his invention prior to initiation of his
preparation of a U.S. patent application on or about
November of 1993, while such experimentation and
development continued. [Rosenthal Opening Brief pages
28-29].
. . . even if Magee could somehow establish that
Rosenthal did abandon, suppress or conceal his
invention at some earlier date, Rosenthal’s establishment
of a conception and reduction to practice by August 14,
1992, renders that contention irrelevant. The same holds
true, in fact, for each provable and corroborated
reduction to practice by Rosenthal, on January 20, 1993;
May 21, 1993; July 12, 1993; and April 11, 1994.
[Rosenthal Opening Brief page 27].
The junior party has submitted the affidavit (Rosenthal Record
page 34) of the inventor which generally discusses various activities of
the inventor during the delay. However, the Rosenthal affidavit is not
clear on what specific activities took place to perfect the invention,
when the activities described took place and does not establish activity
during the entire period of the delay. In addition some activities
31
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007