Interference No. 104,316
Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.
We note that Kanzaki has argued that Sauer had derived the invention of the count from
Kanzaki. That issue is moot in light of Sauer's failure to demonstrate reasonable diligence in
reducing the invention to practice, even assuming that Sauer had a prior conception.
B. Alleged Derivation by Kanzaki
According to Sauer, Exhibit 2045 represents a copy of its first drawings showing
complete conception of the invention of the count. Further according to Sauer, (1) Mr. Fujisaki
from Kanzaki was Sauer's technical contact regarding the anticipated joint venture; (2) Mr. Alan
W. Johnson showed a copy of that which is Exhibit 2045 to Mr. Fujisaki during the meeting held
from November 23, 1987, to November 25, 1987; and (3) Mr. Fujisaki returned to Japan with a
copy of that drawing. Kanzaki does not dispute that Mr. Fujisaki served as the technical contact
person communicating with Sauer, that a copy of the drawing which is Exhibit 2045 was shown
to Mr. Fujisaki by Mr. Alan Johnson during their meeting in November 1987, or that Mr.
Fujisaki returned to Japan with a copy of that drawing. What Kanzaki argues is that the two
figures shown in Exhibit 2045 and relied upon by Sauer do not reflect a complete conception of
the invention of the count.
We agree with Kanzaki. The figures of Exhibit 2045 relied on by Sauer do not show
every feature of the count in this interference.
Conception is the complete performance of the mental part of the inventive act, and all
that remains to be accomplished belongs to the department of construction, not invention.
Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359, 224 USPQ 857, 862 (Fed. Cir. 1985). "It is settled that in
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007