Interference No. 102,755
self-serving excuse for the absence of [an] actual reduction
to practice." This argument fails because excuses for7
inactivity are relevant to diligence. See Griffith v.
Kanamaru, 816 F.2d 624, 626, 2 USPQ2d 1361, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
1987) (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). Paragraphs 9-11 are alleged to be irrelevant
because they "relate to the economics of the invention." We 8
are of the view that these paragraphs are relevant to the
state of the art at the time the alleged conception and
diligence occurred. Paragraph 11, which discusses a response
to a request for a proposal purportedly containing the
invention, is alleged to be irrelevant because "efforts to
commercially exploit an invention are not the equivalent of
diligence. MPEP 2138.06." These efforts are relevant if, as9
Nedelk contends, they were part of an effort to achieve an
actual reduction to practice. For the foregoing reasons, none
of paragraphs 8-11 will be suppressed.
Id. at 11.7
Id. 8
Id.9
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007