Interference No. 102,622
patent department at PPG on May 12, 1988; Oates’ application
was filed in the United States' Patent and Trademark Office on
May 13, 1988.
While acknowledging that there exist time periods
within the seventy-one day critical time period for which no
activity has been shown, Oates urges that only reasonable
diligence needs to be proved in order to satisfy her burden of
persuasion. Oates argues on the basis of work done by her or
on her behalf by others that her evidence adequately
establishes she was reasonably diligent in the critical time
period. Contrariwise, Rivetti et al. urge that notwithstanding
the fact that the courts have acknowledged a "liberal"
standard for finding reasonable attorney diligence, the
controlling decisions on this issue require more evidence of
specific activity for every day in the critical time period
than that presented by Oates. Rivetti et al. argue that
Oates' proofs are inadequate to prove her attorney was
reasonably diligent in the critical time period.
While it is not necessary for an attorney to drop
all other work and focus exclusively on the invention in
question to establish reasonable attorney diligence, it is
necessary to show that "the attorney worked reasonably hard on
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007