Interference No. 103,435
In view of the foregoing, it is our finding that the
Junior party reduced the invention to practice not earlier
than the last day of 1987 or December 31, 1987.
The diligence of Christ’s reduction to practice
Now that we have found that Richard Christ conceived the
invention in 1985 and reduced the invention to practice on
December 31, 1987, we must determine whether the Junior party
was diligent from just prior to the date of the Senior party’s
conception, August 1987, to the Junior party’s own subsequent
reduction to practice, December 31, 1987. Diligence, within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) requires continuous activity
during the critical period. Burns v. Curtis, 172 F.2d 588,
591, 80 USPQ 587, 589 (CCPA 1949). To satisfy the reasonable
diligence requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 102(g), the party
chargeable with diligence must account for the entire period
during which diligence is required. Gould v. Schawlow, 363
F.2d 908, 919,
150 USPQ 634, 643 (CCPA 1966). Evidence of diligence during
the critical period may be shown either by affirmative acts or
acceptable excuses or reasons for failure of action. Hull v.
24
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007