Interference No. 104,403
Conclusion
We have examined the evidence submitted by the junior party
and considered the arguments made by the junior party regarding
priority of invention. While we hold that the junior party actually reduced
the invention of the count to practice on August 14, 1992, we also hold
that the junior party is not entitled to rely on this reduction to practice
because he suppressed or concealed the invention. We also conclude
that the junior party has failed to prove that the senior party derived the
invention of the count or was involved in inequitable conduct.
Motions to suppress
The senior party has filed a motion to suppress various parts of
the Rosenthal record. We have determined that even when all the
evidence the junior party has submitted into evidence has been
considered, the junior party has failed to prove priority of invention.
We, therefore, find in it unnecessary to consider this motion.
55
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007