Ex Parte JOHNSON - Page 12




               Interference No. 104,316                                                                                                              
               Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.                                                                                        

               same invention to practice and be regarded as diligent. Diligence is directed to continuous,                                          
               steady, or constant effort, and not necessarily to any quick result.                                                                  
                        Sauer has not cited to any authority, and we are aware of none, that supports its position                                   
               that diligence is a measure of how quickly, in absolute measure of time, one reduce an invention                                      
               to practice, as compared to some "norm." In contrast, we note that quoting from a Sixth Circuit                                       

               opinion from 1893, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard Inc.,                                       
               79 F.3d 1572, 1577, 38 USPQ2d 1288, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1996), stated:                                                                    
                        [T)he person "who first conceives, and, in a mental sense, first invents, . . . may                                          
                        date his patentable invention back to the time of its conception, if he connects the                                         
                        conception with its reduction to practice by reasonable diligence on his part, so                                            
                        that they are substantially one continuous act." (Emphasis added.)                                                           
                        For the foregoing reasons, continuity of steadfast effort is the linchpin for determining the                                
               presence of reasonable diligence. With the un-excused gap of more than three months from                                              
               November 25, 1987 to February 28, 1988, more than three weeks of which are within the critical                                        
               period commencing from February 3, 1988, Sauer has failed to show the necessary reasonable                                            
               diligence. In its reply, Sauer argues that the public's interest was protected because despite the                                    

               initial gap, it still completed reduction to practice in a short period of time. We disagree. Had                                     
               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.                                   


                                                                     - 12 -                                                                          







Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007