conception by corroborating evidence, preferably by showing a contemporaneous disclosure. An
idea is definite and permanent when the inventor has a specific, settled idea, a particular solution to
the problem at hand, not just a general goal or research plan he hopes to pursue. Burroughs
Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1227-28, 32 USPQ2d 1915,1919 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Patent Idea Record 16876 describes an embodiment including every element of the count. Deck’s
testimony that he read and signed the document on June 26, 1992, corroborates the conception. This
conception constitutes renewed activity on the invention.
c.
The record also establishes renewed activity at least by October 21, 1992, when the Phillips
Invention Committee decided that an application should be prepared and filed on Invention No.
15622 and include this invention as part of Case No. 33136. Bowman testifies that the Patent
Committee evaluated and approved Invention No. 15622 for filing on that date. GR 21, ¶ 38; GX
67. Invention No. 15622 had been assigned to Patent Idea Record 16876. GR 36-37, ¶ 19; GX 57.
4.
We will now consider whether the record demonstrates reasonable diligence from prior to
December 8, 1992, (Sugano’s foreign priority date) to the filing of Geerts’ application on July 14,
1993. The record shows that Case No. 33136 was assigned to Attorney Bowman’s docket on May
22, 1992. GR 22, ¶ 40. Reasonable diligence can be shown if it is established that the attorney
worked reasonably hard on the particular application in question during the continuous critical
period. Bey v. Kollonitsch, 806 F.2d 1024, 1026, 231 USPQ 967, 969 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Generally, the patent attorney must show that unrelated cases are taken up in
chronological order, thus, the attorney has the burden of keeping good
records of the dates when cases are docketed as well as the dates when
specific work is done on the applications.
Kollonitsch, 806 F.2d at 1028, 231 USPQ at 970.
We have been directed to little evidence on the work done on the application in the period
from December 7, 1992, (the day before Sugano filed in Japan) to the filing of the Geerts application.
Geerts principally lies on patent attorney Bowman’s testimony to establish diligence. Other than the
date case No. 33136 was assigned to him and the filing date of the Geerts application. Bowman
22
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007