Interference No. 104,745
of the period given as 13 March and 16 March, respectively, Walls Decl. (LX 1079) ¶ 20;
Burlingame Decl. (LX 1075) ¶ 49) likewise failed to hold up under cross-examination, as they
were unable to recall specific work by Dr. Laiko on the AP-MALDI apparatus or when that work
occurred. Burlingame Depo., LR 411, l. 3 to LR 415, l. 10; Walls Depo., LR 566, ll. 7-9.
Furthermore, Dr. Baldwin testified that during the time period in question, Walls was a part-
time employee and thus not at work every day, Baldwin Depo., LR 222, ll. 4-12, thereby
contradicting Walls's claim that he observed Dr. Laiko working on the AP-MALDI project "on a
daily basis." Walls Decl. (LX 1079) ¶ 20.
Thus, Laiko's evidence regarding Dr. Laiko's AP-MALDI efforts from receipt of the
repaired laser to 9 March lacks the specificity as to acts and dates that is required to establish
reasonable diligence. Gould, 363 F.2d at 920, 150 USPQ at 644. See also Kendall v. Searles,
173 F.2d 986, 993, 81 USPQ 363, 369 (CCPA 1949)(testimony by inventor's wife and son that
the inventor from the time of conception worked continuously on development of invention "was
not specific as to dates and facts" and therefore "does not constitute the kind of corroboratory
evidence required to establish appellant's diligence during the critical period").
As already noted, Laiko seeks to excuse the limited time Dr. Laiko spent on AP-MALDI
from receipt of the repaired laser and up to 9 March on the ground that he was required to spend
most of his regular working hours on other projects, as he indicated in his above-quoted
testimony that his other duties prevented him from spending more than three to six hours per day
on AP-MALDI. Laiko Decl. (LX 1037) ¶ 55. This testimony is amply corroborated by the other
witnesses. Specifically, Dr. Baldwin testified that "his [Dr. Laiko's] duties involved him in
- 59 -
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007