Interference No. 103,635
Conception: This is not at issue. We refer to our comments under this heading with
respect to the prior line of argument.
Actual Reduction to Practice: Scott alleges that the invention was actually reduced
to practice by the end of 1992 by completion of a plant in Louisiana by the end of 1992
(Preliminary Statement, paper no. 27). Koyama does not appear to challenge this
particular allegation. Accordingly, we conclude that Scott has established an actual
reduction to practice of the invention in the U.S. after Koyama's priority date.
Diligence: The only issue is whether Scott has shown reasonable diligence from the
conception in the U.S. prior to March 13, 1990 to the actual reduction to practice occurring
at the end of 1992 in Louisiana. Scott must account for the entire period. In discussing
Scott's first line of argument, we addressed whether Scott has shown reasonable diligence
for the 17 days between March 12, 1990 - one day prior to Koyama's entry into the field
(i.e., March 13, 1990) - and March 29, 1990, Scott's constructive reduction to practice, and
found that reasonable diligence was not shown. Accordingly, since, for the reasons given
supra, Scott cannot account for the period from just before March 13, 1990 to March 29,
1990, Scott cannot account for the entire period from the conception in the U.S. prior to
March 13, 1990 to the actual reduction to practice occurring at the end of 1992 in
Louisiana.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by the second line of argument and find that
Scott has not met its burden of establishing prior conception with reasonable diligence up
to actual reduction to practice.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007