Interference No. 104,403
weeks to make an earlier prototype. There is insufficient detail and
explanation as to why it took from August 14, 1992 to January 20,
1994, more than five months to make another prototype. The
lack of details regarding activities on particular dates is present
throughout the entire affidavit.
In addition, even if we assume that the activities detailed in the
Rosenthal affidavit were done in the periods between the dated
reduction to practices described in the affidavit, there are periods of
time which are not explained. The first such time period that is
unexplained in the Rosenthal affidavit is between July 12, 1993, when
he met with Dr. Bruce P. Rosenthal, and November 1993, when he
began preparation on his patent application. Another time gap is
between July 12, 1994, when he met with Paul Cote, and January 18,
1995, when the patent application was filed.
The junior party has submitted numerous affidavits of individuals
that attest to viewing prototypes of the invention of the count. While
these affidavits may be relevant to the issue of reduction to practice,
they are not evidence of continuous activity to perfect the invention
during the delay period. In fact, as the wording of each evidence
describes the prototypes identically indicating that each witness viewed
the same prototype, these affidavits are evidence that the junior party
33
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007