BAI et al v. LAIKO et al - Page 45




                Interference No. 104,745                                                                                                      

                         produce an appropriate receiver for testing the component); Courson v. O'Connor,                                     
                         227 F. 890, 894 (7th Cir. 1915)("exercise of reasonable diligence * * * does not                                     
                         require an inventor to devote his entire time thereto, or to abandon his ordinary                                    
                         means of livelihood"); De Wallace v. Scott, 15 App.D.C. 157 (1899)(where                                             
                         applicant made  bona fide attempts to perfect his invention, applicant's poor                                        
                         health, responsibility to feed his family, and daily job demands excused his delay                                   
                         in reducing his invention to practice); Texas Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co.,                                       
                         112 F.Supp. 455, 98 USPQ 312  (N.D. Ill. 1953)(delay in filing application                                           
                         excused because of confusion relating to war).                                                                       
                "[T]he activities relied upon as constituting diligence must have been directed to a reduction to                             
                practice of the invention in issue or to overcoming the difficulties that may have been in the way                            
                of a reduction to practice."  C. Rivise & A. Caesar, I Interference Law and Practice § 182                                    
                (Michie Co. 1940).   As with conception and reduction to practice, corroboration is required.                                 
                Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1196, 26 USPQ2d 1031, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  It is necessary                                 
                to  account for the entire critical period, Griffith, 816 F.2d at 626, 2 USPQ2d at 1362, with                                 
                evidence that is specific as to facts and dates.  Gould v. Schawlow, 363 F.2d 908, 920, 150                                   
                USPQ 634, 644 (CCPA 1966).                                                                                                    
                         Most of the testimony by the Laiko witnesses regarding diligence lacks date specificity,                             
                instead placing the acts during time periods bounded by dates apparently obtained from the                                    
                documentary evidence.  For example, LX 1059 is a  Laser Science Inc. ("Laser Science") form                                   
                which according to Dr. Baldwin and Ms. Diana Ferreira (of Laser Science) shows that on                                        
                26 November 1997, Dr. Baldwin contacted Laser Science about repairing a broken nitrogen laser                                 
                (made by Laser Science29).  Baldwin Decl. (LX 1074) ¶ 44; Ferreira Decl. (LX 1058) ¶ 4.  This                                 
                26 November 1997 contact date and the 30 October 1997 conception date established by Dr.                                      

                29  Burlingame Depo., LR 400, ll. 4-6.                                                                                        
                                                                   - 45 -                                                                     





Page:  Previous  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007