SUGANO et al v. TAKAHAMA - Page 24




               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.                                         
                       Bowman also testifies that during the same time period he worked on an application (Case                       
               No. 33120) directed to an invention  “closely related” to the involved invention.  GR 27, ¶ 54.  Case                  
               No. 33120 was apparently assigned to the boroxine invention and ultimately became the 061 patent.                      
               GR 27, ¶ 54.  Work on a related case may be credited toward reasonable diligence if the work on the                    
               related case "contribute[s] substantially to the ultimate preparation of the involved application."                    
               Kollonitsch, 806 F.2d at 1029, 231 USPQ at 970.  Geerts has not explained how the work on the                          
               33120 application contributed substantially to the preparation of Geerts’ involved application.                        
               Bowman merely states the conclusion that the cases are closely related and that much of the work                       
               from 33120 carried over to the preparation of 33136.  GR 27, ¶ 54.  What that work was has not been                    
               identified.                                                                                                            
                       Geerts has failed to prove the dates when activity specific to the Geerts involved application                 
               occurred.  Geerts has failed to show attorney diligence from a time prior to the filing of Sugano’s                    
               Japanese application on December  8, 1992, to the filing of Application 08/092,143 on July 14, 1993.                   
                                                       FINAL JUDGMENT                                                                 
                       It is                                                                                                          
                       ORDERED that judgment on priority as to the subject matter of Count 1 (Paper 42, p.4), is                      
               awarded against the junior party, ROLF L. GEERTS and TARA G. HILL;                                                     
                       FURTHER ORDERED that junior party, ROLF L. GEERTS and TARA G. HILL,  is not                                    
               entitled to a patent containing Claims 1-9, 14, 19-27, 30-32 (corresponding to Count 1) of U.S.                        
               Patent 5,414,180;                                                                                                      
                       FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement agreement that the parties are advised of                        
               the requirement to file a copy of the agreement (35 U.S.C. § 135(c)); and                                              
                       FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment is made of record in Application                                  
               08/887,265 and in the file history of Patent 5,414,180.                                                                


                                                                                      )                                               
                                       RICHARD E. SCHAFER                             )                                               

                                                                 24                                                                   





Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007