Interference No. 104,314
Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.
29, 1988, and that is not prior to Kanzaki's date of conception as is required by 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(g) for any entitlement by Sauer to priority of invention relative to Kanzaki.
For the foregoing reasons, Sauer has not satisfied its burden of proof in demonstrating
priority of invention over Kanzaki.
We note that Kanzaki has argued that Sauer had derived the invention of the count from
Kanzaki. That issue is moot in light of Sauer's failure to demonstrate reasonable diligence in
reducing the invention to practice, even assuming that Sauer had a prior conception.
B. Alleged Derivation by Kanzaki
According to Sauer, Exhibit 2045 represents a copy of its first drawings 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 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 two
figures shown in Exhibit 2045 and relied upon by Sauer do not reflect a complete conception of
the invention of the count.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007