Interference No. 103,635
constructive reduction to practice (Preliminary Statement, paper no. 21). Koyama does not
present evidence to prove conception or actual reduction to practice.
Junior party has the burden of establishing priority by a preponderance of the
evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 1.657(b). Bosies v. Benedict, 27 F.3d 539, 542, 30 USPQ2d 1862,
1864 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Accordingly, Scott, as the junior party, must establish that it actually
reduced to practice the invention of the count before March 13, 1990, Koyama's priority
date, or that it first conceived the invention prior to that date and proceeded with
reasonable diligence from a time just prior to the opponent entering the field toward a
reduction to practice, either actual or constructive. 35 U.S.C. § 102(g). Haskell v.
Colebourne, 671 F.2d 1362, 1365, 213 USPQ 192, 194 (CCPA 1982).
Scott presents three lines of argument to meet its burden of establishing priority.
Scott argues that it has demonstrated:
a. prior conception with reasonable diligence from just before Koyama's entry into the
field (i.e., March 13, 1990) up to constructive reduction to practice (SB 15-21);
b. prior conception with reasonable diligence from just before Koyama's entry into the
field (i.e., March 13, 1990) up to actual reduction to practice (SB 21-22); and,
c. prior actual reduction to practice (SB 22-23).
Prior Conception With Reasonable Diligence Up To Constructive Reduction to Practice
In the first line of argument, Scott contends that they have demonstrated prior
conception with reasonable diligence from just before Koyama's entry into the field (i.e.,
the cases, statutes, other authorities, and part of the record relied on.6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007