Interference No. 103,635
March 13, 1990) up to constructive reduction to practice.
Prior Conception: Scott alleges prior conception on the grounds that the invention
was disclosed to others in the U.S. no later than October 1, 1989 (Preliminary Statement,
paper no. 27). Koyama (KB 1) "concedes that Scott has established conception before
the Koyama priority date". Accordingly, the fact that Scott has established conception prior
to Koyama's priority date is not in dispute.
Constructive Reduction to Practice: Scott alleges a constructive reduction to
practice on March 29, 1990. During the preliminary motion period, Scott moved under 37
C.F.R. § 1.633(f) to be accorded the benefit of G.B. application No. 90 07029.3, filed
March 29, 1990. Koyama (paper no. 46) opposed the motion. That motion (paper no. 25)
was granted (Decision on Motions, paper no. 47) and "Koyama no longer opposes the
motion" (KB 6). Accordingly, the fact that Scott has established constructive reduction to
practice on March 29, 1990, is not in dispute.
Diligence: The dispute centers on whether Scott has shown reasonable diligence
from just prior to Koyama's entry into the field (i.e., March 13, 1990) until Scott's
constructive reduction to practice (i.e., March 29, 1990). Accordingly, Scott must show
reasonable diligence for no less than the period March 12-29, 1990.
To establish diligence, Scott must account for the entire 17-day critical period.
Specific activities during the critical period must be demonstrated and they must be
specific as to dates and facts. Nashef v. Pollock, 4 USPQ2d 1631, 1635 (Bd. Pat. App. &
Int. 1987). The activities must have occurred in the United States. Wilson v. Sherts, 81 F.2d
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007