Interference No. 104,313
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
A. Alleized Diligence of Sauer in Reducing the Invention to Practice
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
dili gence 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).
The diligence at issue is that for reducing the invention of the count to practice, not that
in connection with unrelated activities or inventions, although sufficiently related activities may
sometimes qualify as being directed to reducing the invention of the count to practice. Naber v.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007