Interference No. 103,345
show that he was doing anything toward preparing or filing his
application during a period of one month or more immediately
preceding Williams's September 29 entry into the field. 255
F.2d at 424, 118 USPQ at 101. See also Scharmann v. Kassel,
179 F.2d 991, 997, 84 USPQ 472, 477 (CCPA 1950) (January 19
letter referring to earlier patent memorandum was not
immediately prior to opponent's February 15 entry into the
field and thus was not relevant to question of diligence); I
C. Rivise and A. Caesar, Interference Law and Practice § 178,
at 550 (The Michie Co. 1940).
Although Pellemans testified that "[u]pon review of15
Mr. Sharma's search report, we recommended filing a patent
application, and began preparation of such an application,"
neither Pellemans nor any other witness testified that any
part of this preparation occurred in the United States. The
only activity said to occur in this country during the
critical period was the receipt by Michael Lasky of
Minneapolis, Minnesota, of Pellemans's December 21, 1992,
letter identified as Exhibit C (Roberge Ex. 3), requesting
that the application be filed in the United States Patent and
Pellemans Aff., RR 7-8, para. 6.15
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007