Ex Parte JOHNSON - Page 9




             Interference No. 104,314                                                                                       
             Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.                                                                 

             Therefore, Sauer's date of conception need only be Prior to February 3, 1988, provided that there              
             is a showing of reasonable diligence in reducing the invention to practice. Kanzaki disputes                   
             Sauer's assertion that Sauer had conceived of the invention of the count on September 8, 1987.                 
             But we need not reach that question here, because even assuming that Sauer has a date of                       
             conception prior to February 3, 1988, and even further assuming that Sauer has an actual                       
             reduction to practice sometime in October of 1988, Sauer has failed to demonstrate reasonable                  

             diligence toward reduction to practice from a time just prior to February 3, 1988, to October,                 
             1988.                                                                                                          
                     In the fourth entry appearing in a chart beginning on page 25 of its brief, Sauer                      
             specifically accounts for its activities in the period from 11/26/87 to 02/28/88. Also within that             
             entry, Sauer admits that all the identified activities are directed to design concepts outside of the          
             scope of the count. Sauer further does not allege that such activities outside of the scope of the             
             count was somehow either required or necessary for constructing and/or testing an embodiment                   
             which is within the scope of the count. This gap, more than three weeks of which are within                    

             Sauer's critical period during which Sauer must have been reasonably diligent in reducing the                  
             invention to practice, renders unpersuasive Sauer's assertion that it had been reasonably diligent             
             in the critical period for reducing the invention of the count to practice.                                    
                     Sauer argues that during that initial gap, it was merely relying on agreements made with               
             Kanzaki with regard to what it would work on subsequent to their technical meeting held from                   
             11/23/87 to 11/25/87. The argument is without merit. That the parties together decided to direct               

                                                         - 9 -                                                              







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

Last modified: November 3, 2007