Interference No. 104,311 Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd. explained above, the issue at hand is not the overall completion time, but whether there had been steadfast and continuous effort sufficient to constitute reasonable diligence. Here, there was not. Furthermore, it is also questionable how Sauer can group all "transmissions" together as having a "normal" time period for design, construction, and testing. The basis is not articulated. Indeed, much depends on the particular features embodied in the specific transmission being reduced to practice. An adequate time for one transmission may not be adequate for another transmission, and an inadequate time for one transmission may well be adequate for another. Sauer's witness, Mr. Staffan Kaempe testifies in his declaration in 114: "Based on my experience as General Manager, I believe that the normal time period that it takes to design, build, and test a brand name transmission is at least one year," That testimony is not very meaningful since not all brand name transmissions are necessarily of the same level of complexity. According to Kanzaki, even for times subsequent to February 28, 1988, Sauer has not shown reasonable diligence in reducing the invention of the count to practice. However, we need not address that issue because even assuming that Sauer was reasonably diligent subsequent to February 28, 1988, that diligence did not commence prior to Kanzaki's effective filing date of February 3, 1988. At the very most, any diligence on the part of Sauer commenced on February 29, 1988, and that is not prior to Kanzaki's date of conception as is required by 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) for any entitlement by Sauer to priority of invention relative to Kanzaki. - 13 -Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007