LOUIS et al. V. OKADA et al. - Page 12




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

             practice and be regarded as diligent; and still another inventor may take two years to reduce the              
             same invention to practice and be regarded as diligent. Diligence is directed to continuous,                   
             steady, or constant effort, and not necessarily to any quick result.                                           
                     Sauer has not cited to any authority, and we are aware of none, that supports its position             
             that diligence is a measure of how quickly, in absolute measure of time, one reduce an invention               
             to practice, as compared to some "norm." In contrast, we note that quoting from a Sixth Circuit                
             opinion from 1893, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard Inc.,                
             79 F.3d 1572, 1577, 38 USPQ2d 1288, 1290 (Fed. Cit. 1996), stated:                                             
                     [T]he person "who first conceives, and, in a mental sense, first invents,. . . may                     
                     date his patentable invention back to the time of its conception, if he connects the                   
                     conception with its reduction to practice by reasonable diligence on his part, so                      
                     that they are substantially one continuous act." (Emphasis added.)                                     
                     For the foregoing reasons, continuity of steadfast effort is the linchpin for deter-mining the         
             presence of reasonable diligence. With the un-excused gap of more than three months from                       
             November 25, 1987 to February 28, 1988, more than three weeks of which are within the critical                 
             period commencing from February 3, 1988, Sauer has failed to show the necessary reasonable                     
             diligence. In its reply, Sauer argues that the public's interest was protected because despite the             
             initial gap, it still completed reduction to practice in a short period of time. We disagree. Had              
             there not been this three month gap, more than three weeks of which is in Sauer's critical period,             
             Sauer most likely could have reduced the invention to practice earlier. In any event, as already               



                                                          - 12 -                                                            






Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007