United States. See Shurie v. Richmond, 699 F.2d 1156, 216 USPQ
1042 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
For these reasons, Hill has failed to sufficiently
demonstrate that it actually reduced the invention to practice.
Diligence
Hill alternatively argues that it was diligent from the time
of its conception, 8 September 1992 until the time the involved
Hill application was filed, on 29 October 1992". Hill need only
show, however, that it was diligent from a time prior to
Snitzer's 20 October 1992 filing until its 29 October 1992
filing. 35 U.S.C. § 102(g). The date of activity that Hill
relies on that is prior to 20 October 1992 is 14 September 1992,
when a letter was sent to Mr. Pascal, a patent agent, soliciting
for a cost estimate for writing a patent application for the Hill
invention. Hill directs us to no other evidence of acts of
diligence from 14 September 1992 until its application is filed
on 29 October 1992.
Hill argues that it is clear that the Hill patent
application had to be prepared during the time period between 8
14 Neither Anderson nor Snitzer argue that the Hill
manuscript fails to constitute a conception of the interfering
subject matter. Snitzer, however, objects to the admissibility
of the Hill manuscript, the receipt from the Annual Review
office, and the marked-up Hill manuscript. For reasons provided,
infra, those documents are admissible. The Hill manuscript does
describe the method of the count (Finding-48). Thus, Hill has
proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, a prior conception of
the interfering subject matter by 8 September 1992.
36
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007