Interference No. 104,313
Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.
B. Alleged Derivation by Kanzaki
According to Sauer, Exhibit 2045 represents a copy of its first drawing showing complete
conception of the invention of the count. Further according to Sauer, (1) Mr. Fujisaki from
Kanzaki was Sauer's technical contact regarding the anticipated joint venture; (2) Mr. Alan W.
Johnson showed a copy of that drawing which is Exhibit 2045 to Mr. Fujisaki during the meeting
held from November 23, 1987, to November 25, 1987; and (3) Mr. Fujisaki returned to Japan
with a copy of that drawing. Kanzaki does not dispute that Mr. Fujisaki served as the technical
contact person communicating with Sauer, that a copy of the drawing which is Exhibit 2045 was
shown to Mr. Fujisaki by Mr. Alan Johnson during their meeting in November 1987, or that Mr.
Fujisaki returned to Japan with a copy of that drawing. What Kanzaki argues is that the drawing
shown in Exhibit 2045 does not reflect a complete conception of the invention of the count.
We agree with Kanzaki. The drawing of Exhibit 2045 does not show every feature of the
count in this interference.
Conception is the complete performance of the mental part of the inventive act, and all
that remains to be accomplished belongs to the department of construction, not invention.
Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359, 224 USPQ 857, 862 (Fed. Cir. 1985). "It is settled that in
establishing conception a party must show possession of every feature recited in the count, and
that every limitation of the count must have been known to the inventor at the time of the alleged
conception." Id.; see also Sewall v. Walters, 30 USPQ2d 1356, 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Even
Sauer recognizes, on page 48 of its brief, that to prove conception, it must show possession of
a - 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007