Interference No. 101,981
The Cases For Priority
Alleged Dates Of Conception And Reduction To Practice
Having analyzed the requirements for conception and reduction to practice in light of the
parties’ arguments, we now turn to the parties’ briefs to determine what dates of conception and
reduction to practice they believe they are entitled to. We reproduce the following statements in
this regard:
Qadri: “A. NRL conceived of the invention on March 2, 1987.” QB 40, line 3. “B. The Party
Qadri reduced the invention to practice sometime during the period of April 6, 1987 to April 10,
1987.” QB 55, line 19-21. “C. The party Qadri was reasonably diligent, from March 2, 1987 until
reduction to practice.” QB 57, lines 15-16.
Beyers: “It is submitted that the above section of this brief proves conclusively that the party
Beyers et al had a complete, corroborated conception of the invention by the morning of March
3, 1987, and with all possible diligence actually reduced to practice with corroboration no later
than March 6, 1987.” BeB 24, lines 7-12.
Batlogg: “13. Thus, by the evening of Sunday, March 1, 1987 Cava et al. clearly had conceived
and simultaneously reduced to practice the invention as defined by the count (see, for instance
37
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007