Interference No. 103,322
its intended purpose clearly constituted a foreign activity
relied on to establish a date of invention and thus was
excluded by 35 U.S.C. § 104 from
the evidence that can be relied on to establish a date of
invention in this country. See Shurie v. Richmond, 699 F.2d
1156, 1158, 216 USPQ 1042, 1044 (Fed. Cir. 1983)("An actual
reduction to practice in Canada is irrelevant in an
interference proceeding concerning priority of
invention")(quoting Wilson v. Sherts, 81 F.2d 755, 760,
28 USPQ 381, 383-84 (CCPA 1936)); Colbert v. Lofdahl, 21
USPQ2d 1068, 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991):
If the invention is reduced to practice in
a foreign country and knowledge of the
invention was brought into this country and
disclosed to others, the inventor can
derive no benefit from the work done abroad
and such knowledge is merely evidence of
conception of the invention. DeKando v.
Armstrong, 169 O.G. 1185, 1911 CD 413 (App.
D.C. 1911); see also 35 U.S.C. § 104.
Linkletter mentions the change in 35 U.S.C. § 104
respecting WTO countries. It is noted that the change
Linkletter is referring to became effective in applications
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007