occurred during the approximately one month period that Wen-Foo
Chern had the draft application, or why it took Wen-Foo Chern so
long to review the draft application. We only know that on 24
January 1992, Meza and Wen-Foo Chern discussed the application.
There are other unaccounted for gaps during the critical
period. From 2 November 1991 until 30 December 1991, Meza did no
work on the '339 application. Chern argues that Meza was working
through his backlog on other cases, and on related cases (Paper
24 at 19). While the diligence law permits an attorney to work
in this manner', the law also specifies that "the attorney has
the burden of keeping good records of the dates when cases are
docketed as well as the dates when specific work is done on the
applications." Bey v. Kollonitsch, 806 F.2d 1024, 1028, 181 USPQ
967, 970 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, there is no account for the time from 6 December 1991
until 18 December 1991. Meza states that "on or about" 6
December 1991 he prepared a letter to Chern regarding a draft
application '340 (Finding 41(t)). Based on the record, no work
was performed until 18 December 1991, at which time Meza prepared
a letter to Micron regarding an unrelated application (91-095)
(Finding 41(w))'. Chern argues that Meza worked on the 91-095
application, an older case on Meza's docket, prior to the time
9 See Bey v. Koiionitsch, 806 F.2d 1024, 1028, 181 usPQ 967,
970 (Fed. Cir. 1986), for a discussion regarding reasonable
diligence and work on related cases.
28 -
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007