Interference No. 102,755
inventor. As a result, the only corroboration for Nedelk's17
conception prior to Stimson's benefit date is Beck's
testimony.
3. Diligence
Inasmuch as Nedelk has proved a corroborated
conception prior to Stimson's February 16, 1988, benefit date,
we turn to the question of whether Nedelk has also shown
diligence for the critical period running from just prior to
Stimson's benefit date up to Nedelk's February 21, 1989,
filing date, as required for Nedelk to prevail on the issue of
priority. 35 U.S.C. § 102(g). 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).
Nedelk does not allege any acts toward a
constructive or actual reduction to practice during the first
five months of the critical period. Instead, Nedelk argues
that the failure to perform any such acts during this interval
should be excused on the ground that the control apparatus
Although Nemcheck testified that he was aware of the Taxi17
Brake Select concept prior to the October 9, 1985, date of
Gillespie's letter to Nelson (NR 238:25 to 239:10), he is not sure
who had the idea first (NR 257:7-19).
- 16 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007