Interference No. 102,755
required to carry out the invention was simple and required no
research and development, with the result that all that was
required to reduce the invention to practice was to install
the control apparatus on a suitable new aircraft, which did
not become available until the summer of 1988, when British
Aerospace issued a request for proposals for a braking system
to be used in the Airbus A330/340. The fundamental problem we
have with this argument is that the evidence fails to
demonstrate that prior to February 16, 1988, a decision had
been made to reduce Nedelk's invention to practice. A party
cannot be excused for failing to act unless the party had an
intent to act but for the circumstances offered as an excuse.
See Smith v. Crivello, 215 USPQ 446, 453 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1982)
("an essential requirement of every acceptable excuse for lack
of diligence is a reasonable showing that except for the
excuse the inventor would have been working on the invention
during the period he seeks excused."). Compare Keizer v.
Bradley, 270 F.2d 396, 399, 123 USPQ 215, 217 (CCPA 1959)
(holding that the evidence shows a continuing intent to reduce
automatic chroma control circuit to practice as soon as
television receiver reached suitable stage of development).
The testimony to the effect that the Patent Screening
Committee decided in December 1986 to delay filing a patent
- 17 -
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007