Interference No. 104,315
Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.
there not been this three month gap, more than three weeks of which is in Sauer's critical period,
Sauer most likely could have reduced the invention to practice earlier. In any event, as already
explained above, the issue at hand is not the overall completion time, but whether there had been
steadfast and continuous effort sufficient to constitute reasonable diligence. Here, there was not.
Furthermore, it is also questionable how Sauer can group all "transmi ssions" together as
having a "normal" time period for design, construction, and testing. The basis is not articulated.
Indeed, much depends on the particular features embodied in the specific transmission being
reduced to practice. An adequate time for one transmission may not be adequate for another
transmission, and an inadequate time for one transmission may well be adequate for another.
Sauer's witness, Mr. Staffan Kaempe testifies in his declaration in 114: "Based on my
experience as General Manager, I believe that the normal time period that it takes to design,
build, and test a brand name transmission is at least one year." That testimony is not very
meaningful since not all brand name transmissions are necessarily of the same level of
complexity.
According to Kanzaki, even for times subsequent to February 28, 1988, Sauer has not
shown reasonable diligence in reducing the invention of the count to practice. However, we need
not address that issue because even assuming that Sauer was reasonably diligent subsequent to
February 28, 1988, that diligence did not commence prior to Kanzaki's effective filing date of
February 3, 1988. At the very most, any diligence on the part of Sauer commenced on February
29, 1988, and that is not prior to Kanzaki's date of conception as is required by 35 U.S.C.
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007