AKITADA et al v. AKITADA et al v. GRUNDMANN et al - Page 18




                Patent Interference No. 103,892                                                       Page 18                           

                     As we pointed out supra, Davie has limited its case for priority to its evidence that                              
                it actually reduced the invention to practice prior to June 26, 1986. Since Davie has not                               
                made its case, Grundmann must prevail on the issue of priority.                                                         

                     We make the following additional comments.                                                                         

                Simultaneous Conception and Reduction to Practice                                                                       
                     Davie’s case for priority includes an argument that Davie simultaneously                                           
                conceived and reduced to practice the invention of the count prior to June 26, 1986. For                                
                example, at page 9, Davie argues that                                                                                   
                     The dates of receipt of the manuscripts of the articles by the journal are the                                     
                     dates upon which Davie relies for both conception and corroboration of reduction                                   
                     to practice. Thus, simultaneous conception and reduction to practice of the b                                      
                     subunit of factor XIII by Davie was at least as early as February 28, 1986, and                                    
                     simultaneous conception and reduction to practice of the a subunit of factor XIII by                               
                     Davie was at least as early as June 23, 1986.                                                                      
                    There are special fact situations where an invention cannot be conceived until it has                               
                been reduced to practice. The legal doctrine of “simultaneous conception and reduction                                  
                to practice” may apply in such situations. As early as Smith v. Bousquet, 111 F.2d 157,                                 
                45 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1940), the court recognized that parties may not be able to                                           
                establish conception until experimental tests have been conducted to determine the                                      
                effectiveness of the invention involved.16  The doctrine has been applied recently to fact                              

                                                                                                                                        
                16 “The evidence of record relative to conception and reduction to practice should be, and accordingly has              
                been, considered in conformity with the character of the invention here involved, and we are in agreement               
                with the views expressed by the Examiner of Interferences that the record in the case does not warrant a                
                holding that either of the parties established conception of the invention prior to, or independent of, a               







Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007