LOUIS et al. V. OKADA et al. - Page 6




              Interference No. 104,312                                                                                         
              Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.                                                                   

                      18, According to Sauer, from November 26, 1987, to February 28, 1988, it worked on                       
              two of the four concepts marked for further study at the November 1987 meeting. Sauer admits                     
              that neither one of these concepts which it had worked on during that three month time period is                 
              within the scope of the count in this interference. (Br. at 25.)                                                 
                                                          Discussion                                                           
                      Although argued by Sauer in its brief for final hearing, derivation of the invention of the              
              count from Sauer by Kanzaki's named inventor was withdrawn as an issue in this case per the                      
              representation of Sauer's counsel during oral argument on May 29, 2002. See Transcript of Final                  
              hearing at 68 and 70. Accordingly, that issue is no longer before us.                                            
                      Junior party Sauer does not allege that it reduced the invention of the count to practice                
              prior to Kanzaki's accorded benefit date of February 3, 1988. Rather, it seeks to prevail on the                 
              issue of priority by asserting that it had a prior conception which is coupled with reasonable                   
              diligence from a time prior to conception of the invention by Kanzaki's inventor to Sauer's own                  
              reduction to practice. See 35 U.S.C. § 102(g).                                                                   
                      "The reasonable diligence standard balances the interest in rewarding and encouraging                    
              invention with the public's interest in the earliest possible disclosure of innovation." Griffith v.             
              Kanamarul 816 F.2d 624, 626, 2 USPQ2d 1361, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1987). General allegations are                       
              insufficient to demonstrate reasonable diligence. Wiesner v. Weigert, 666 F.2d 582, 588-89, 212                  
              USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 198 1). Evidence of diligence must be specific as to dates and facts.                        
              Kendall v. Searles, 173 F.2d 986, 993, 81 USPQ 363, 369 (CCPA 1949).                                             

                                                              6                                                                







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007