Interference No. 104,314
Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.
At this time this concept which was selected was integrated design of housing and
center section. However, if we are to have integral housing with center section,
there are many difficult problems. Everybody realized those difficulties and in
order to find solutions. What it means here is Sauer is going to take the lead to
find a solution.
According to Sauer, and consistent with Mr. Fujisaki's testimony, during the November 23-25,
1987 meeting, the parties jointly decided that they would pursue an IHT having a center section
that is integral to the housing as opposed to being separately mounted within the housing. (Sauer
Fact 80)
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 26.)
Discussion
A. Alleged Diligence of Sauer in Reduciniz 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
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.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007