Interference No. 103,635
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the activities conducted during the critical period
demonstrate reasonable diligence on the part of Scott to constructively reduce to practice
the subject matter of the count.
Scott (SB 19) adds that the "Scott U.K. patent application was prepared and filed
because of the U.S. activities and this was done as quickly as possible (S 5-6/6; 79/50)."
In other words, in addition to the argument we addressed supra with regard to whether the
activities associated with commercializing the process were directed to reducing the
invention to practice, Scott also argues that there was attorney diligence.
On the issue of attorney diligence, the facts do not show that any effort was made in
the U.S. to expedite the preparation and filing of the U.K. application. According to Scott,
Alan Oldroyd, a European attorney employed by ICI in England declared (see Appendix 2
of Scott brief) that there was pressure from the U.S. to file the U.K application. But it would
appear that Alan Oldroyd prepared and filed the application in the U.K. Scott does not
show otherwise. Accordingly, the way we understand the argument, Scott is contending that
the preparing/filing activities, that occurred in the U.K., should inure to the benefit of Scott in
the U.S. because the activities (albeit commercializing activities), that caused the
"pressure" to file, originated in the U.S. We are not persuaded by this argument. We see
no reason to place any weight on a so-called "pressure" to file abroad, that happens to
originate in the U.S., where no activities by the attorney in preparing and filing a foreign
application has occurred in the U.S. Acts done abroad may not be considered in
establishing diligence in reducing the invention to practice. Wilson v. Sherts, 81 F.2d at
the present invention, was tested under actual flight conditions not long prior to appellant's laboratory tests
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007