inadmissible in this proceeding and even if these documents were admissible, they do
not establish that the junior party had reduced to practice a blade disk that included an
opening through the disk body that is radially outward of the juncture. Thus, even if the
exhibits were admissible, they do not show a blade having every element of the count.
As count 2 includes all the limitations of count 1, it is our opinion that the junior
party has failed to establish reduction to practice of the invention of count 2 for the same
reasons detailed above in regard to count 1. Moreover, there is no depiction in Exhibits
2008 and 2056 of a juncture that is inclined from trailing end to leading end radially
inward because each of these exhibits depicts a saw blade without an opening and
therefore without an unsevered side of the cutting segment that forms a juncture. In
addition, even if we considered the juncture made by the riveted cutting segments with
the blade body, the juncture required by count 2, Exhibits 2008 and 2056, are not clear
on what angle the juncture is inclined and there is no testimony of record explaining this
aspect of Exhibits 2008 and 2056.
E. Conception and diligence by the iunior party in 1994
In order to establish priority on the basis of conception of the invention in 1994,
the junior party must establish not only that the invention of the count was conceived in
1994 but also that the junior party exercised diligence just prior to the filing date of the
'700 patent until Bernardy's reduction to practice. The junior party has not directed our
attention to any evidence regarding diligence. Therefore, even if the junior party
establishes that the invention of the count was conceived in 1994, the junior party can
not prevail on the basis of conception in 1994. In any case, as we discuss below, it is
-20-
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007