Interference No. 104,314
Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Kanamaru, 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 1981). 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.
Cricchil 567 F.2d 382, 385, 196 USPQ 294, 296 (CCPA 1977)("It is doubtless true that work
quite unconnected with the reduction to practice cannot be considered. But whether particular
work is sufficiently connected with the invention to be considered to be in the area of reducing it
to practice must be determined in the light of the particular circumstances of the case which may
be as varied as the mind of man can conceive."); see also Bey v. Kollonitsc: , 806 F.2d 1024, 231
USPQ 967 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Because Sauer's involved patent was at one time co-pending with Kanzaki's involved
application, Sauer's burden of proof with regard to demonstrating priority is by a preponderance
of the evidence. See e.g., Bruning v. Hirose, 161 F.3d 681, 684, 48 USPQ2d 1934, 1938 (Fed.
Cir. 1998); Bosies v. Benedict, 27 F.3d 539, 541-42, 30 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Sauer asserts that Mr. Alan W. Johnson conceived of the invention of the count on
September 8, 1987, and actually reduced it to practice by August 17, 1988. However, from
Sauer's alleged Facts 86- 101 it is apparent that testing on the prototype apparatus assembled on
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007