Interference No. 103,322
but since the senior party was first to conceive, the senior
party can prevail, if the senior party can show diligence from
just prior to the junior party’s entry into the field to the
senior party’s reduction to practice.
A party that seeks to establish reasonable diligence
must account for the entire period during which diligence is
required; that period commences from a time just prior to the
opponent’s conception date to the party's reduction to
practice, either actual or constructive. Gould v. Schawlow,
363 F.2d 908, 919, 150 USPQ 634, 643 (CCPA 1966). During this
period there must be "reasonably continuous activity." Burns
v. Curtis, 172 F.2d 588, 591, 80 USPQ 587, 588-89 (CCPA
1949). Evidence which is of a general nature to the effect
that work was
continuous and which has few specifics as to dates and facts
does not constitute the kind of evidence required to establish
diligence in the critical period. Kendall v. Searles, 173
F.2d 986, 993, 81 USPQ 363, 369 (CCPA 1949). Of course, a
requirement of the law of reasonable diligence is the
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007