1. 35 USC § 102(g)(1) and (2) (g)(1) Inventor establishes [prior invention] and not abandoned, suppressed or concealed...” (g)(2) Invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed or concealed it.”

2. Peeler v Miller Peeler et al. rely only on Filing Date: 1.4.1968 4.27.1970 Miller Filing Date March, 1966: Miller R to P 3.14.1966 Miller Conception

3. Peeler et al. (Chevron Researchers) Related Patent: 3,583,920 (1971)

4. § 102(g) “Abandoned, Suppressed, or Concealed” R to P Filing Date

5. Peeler points “Counts” are basically claims –Special interference lingo “Abandoned experiment” argument – basically, enablement –See Rosaire case

6. Peeler points cont’d P 458: “Which of the rival inventors has the greater right to a patent?” –Classic Judge Rich approach to invention priority issue –See also Paulik, p. 461 “In our opinion, a four year delay from [R to P] to [filing] is prima facie unreasonably long...”

7. Christie ONLY Seybold’s diligence matters Conception Reduction to practice Conception Compare to Diligence -- §102(g)(2) R to P

8. Interferences – some fine points Administrative §135 : USPTO Bd Pat Int & App.; appeal to Fed Cir under §134, 141 OR appeal under §§ 145/146