Interference No. 103,345
1983); Clevenger v. Kooi, 190 USPQ 188, 192 (Bd. Pat. Int.
1974); Mortsell v. Laurila, 301 F.2d 947, 951, 133 USPQ 380,
384 (CCPA 1962).
As for diligence, while Sharma's patentability
search in this country is an act of the type which normally
can be relied on to show diligence, Wilson v. Goldmark, 172
F.2d 575, 581, 80 USPQ 508, 514 (CCPA 1949); Kondo, 220 USPQ
at 52, it is not evidence of diligence in this interference
because it did not occur during the critical period. Instead,
it was completed on June 16, 1992, which is four and one-half
months before Staples's November 12, 1992, filing date, too
far in advance of that date to be considered to be "just" or
"immediately" prior thereto, as required by the case law. See
Suh v. Hoefle, 23 USPQ2d 1321, 1334 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1991) (evidence of work taking place at least one month prior
to the date of an opponent's entry into the field does not
constitute diligence just prior to that date) (citing Reiser
v. Williams, 255 F.2d 419, 118 USPQ 96 (CCPA 1958)). In
Reiser, the court held that Reizer's testimony, even if
corroborated, failed to establish activity by him at any
particular time in August or September and therefore did not
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007