Interference No. 103,197
Diligence can be shown by evidence of activity aimed at
reducing the invention to practice, either actually or
constructively, and/or by legally adequate excuses for
inactivity. Griffith v. Kanamaru, 816 F.2d 624, 626, 2 USPQ2d
1361, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1987). It is necessary to account for
the entire critical period, Griffith, 816 F.2d at 626,
2 USPQ2d at 1362, with evidence that is specific as to facts
and dates. Gould v. Schawlow, 363 F.2d 908, 920, 150 USPQ
634, 644 (CCPA 1966). Although the case law on excuses for
inactivity in reducing to practice reveals that the reasonable
everyday problems and limitations encountered by an inventor
must be considered, Griffith, 816 F.2d at 626, 2 USPQ2d at
1362, efforts to achieve an actual reduction to practice of an
invention outside the count will excuse inactivity with
respect to the invention of the count only if it is necessary
to reduce the inventions to practice in that order. Naber v.
Cricchi, 567 F.2d 382, 385, 196 USPQ 294, 296-97 (CCPA 1977),
cert. denied, 439 U.S. 826, 200 USPQ 64 (1978); Thompson v.
Dunn, 166 F.2d 443, 77 USPQ 49 (1948). As an example of when
work on another invention constitutes a satisfactory excuse,
Griffith and Naber both cite Keizer v. Bradley, 270 F.2d 396,
- 80 -
Page: Previous 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007