Interference No. 103,675
adequate corroboration and because every element of conception must be
corroborated11, Chen et al. have no evidence which proves "the
formation, in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent
idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is thereafter to
be applied in practice." Coleman, 754 F.2d at 359, 224 USPQ at 862.
The section of Chen et al.'s brief devoted to the
"reasonable diligence" aspect of their priority case is little more
than various conclusions made without regard to any underlying facts
which support the conclusions made by Chen et al. For example, at page
174 of their brief, Chen et al. conclude that:
The record also shows that Chen meets the second criterion,
that reasonable diligence was exercised by Chen from a time
prior to December 9, 1992, to a later actual or constructive
reduction to practice. In particular, Chen was actively
prosecuting the Chen parent applications from prior to
December 9, 1992, up through the March 11, 1993, filing date
of the Chen patent claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120
to the Chen parent applications. That filing is, by
definition, a constructive reduction to practice of the
counts.
11 Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359-60, 224 USPQ 857, 862
(Fed. Cir. 1985).
99
Page: Previous 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007