LEVIEN V. KATAYAMA et al. - Page 20


                 Interference No. 103,587                                                                                                            

                          According to Katayama, there is no evidence that the disclosure took place on                                              
                 November 8, 1987 rather than November 8, 1988 or 1989.  With respect to the date of disclosure,                                     
                 the senior party asserts that the sole dated document, the program WAVY.BAS (LX-10), might                                          
                 have influenced Jack Levien’s recollection but that the document is entitled to no weight because                                   
                 its date was under the sole control of the inve ntor until 1996.                                                                    
                          Katayama opposes Levien’s case for actual reduction to practice on November 12, 1987                                       
                 asserting that the only evidence that anything was done on that date is the date “11-12-87” on the                                  
                 printout of the WAVY.BAS program made in 1996 and that the “11-12-87” date is not self-                                             
                 authenticating because the date was under the sole control of the inventor and has not been                                         
                 accompanied by any independent corroboration.                                                                                       
                          The senior party submits that the inventor has no actual recollection of reducing the                                      
                 invention to practice on November 12, 1987.  The position is taken that the inventor relies on the                                  
                 “11-12-87” date to assume that the WAVY.BAS program was operational on that date and to                                             
                 then conclude that he must have screened an image that day because it was his practice to do so.                                    
                          The argument is made that there is no independent corroboration of an actual reduction to                                  
                 practice because Jack Levien relies on the “11-12-87” date on the WAVY.BAS printout and his                                         
                 son’s practice of screening images as soon as a program was written, to guess that there must                                       
                 have been a reduction to practice on November 12, 1987.                                                                             
                          Finally, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that WAVY.BAS was reduced to                                       
                 practice on November 12, 1987, Katayama argues that Levien has not shown that it performed a                                        
                 screening operation in accord with count 2.  With respect to LX-12, it is urged that the                                            
                 generation of the “novelty effect as if viewing the subject through a window blind” (LR at 35,                                      
                 paragraph 18) cannot be considered an actual reduction to practice of the invention which                                           



                                                                         20                                                                          



Page:  Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007