BAI et al v. LAIKO et al - Page 62




                Interference No. 104,745                                                                                                      

                representatives deliberately refrained from making an adequately meaningful test readily within                               
                their immediate abilities solely on the ground on convenience").  See also Wu v. Davis,                                       
                167 USPQ 467, 473 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1968)(a desire not to interfere with equipment already in use is                             
                not a valid excuse for inactivity).  Inasmuch as working on the AP-MALDI apparatus was one of                                 
                Dr. Laiko's employment responsibilities, albeit one having a low priority, the principle that an                              
                inventor need not surrender or neglect his regular employment in order to show reasonable                                     
                diligence, Gould, 363 F.2d at 919, 150 USPQ at 643, does not apply.  See Donald Chisum, 3                                     
                Patents § 10.07[4][c] (Rel 82-3/02)("Naturally, if work on an invention is a part of the inventor's                           
                employment, employment is not such an excuse for inactivity or to slow the pace of activity.").                               
                         The absence of sufficient relevant activity or an acceptable excuse for inactivity during                            
                the period of 24 February through 9 March 1998, and coupled with the one-week period of                                       
                unexplained inactivity preceding the 14 January 1998 laser repair order to Laser Science are, in                              
                our view, sufficient to defeat Laiko's claim of diligence and with it Laiko's case for priority.  See                         
                Ireland v. Smith, 97 F.2d 95, 99-100, 37 USPQ 807, 811 (CCPA 1938) (held not diligent for                                     
                failing to account for period of three and one-half weeks).  Consequently, we need not consider                               
                whether there is adequate corroboration for the activities Dr. Laiko allegedly performed during                               
                10-13 March, the four days immediately preceding the admitted actual reduction to practice,                                   
                which include: (a)  pre-testing the AP-MALDI apparatus on 10 March by assembling and                                          
                disassembling the entire apparatus, including removing and replacing the ESI input apparatus,                                 
                Laiko Decl. (LX 1037) ¶ 65; (b) assembling the AP-MALDI apparatus on 11 March and using it                                    
                on that day to conduct an unsuccessful test with a matrix of "-cyano and an analyte mixture of                                

                                                                   - 62 -                                                                     





Page:  Previous  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007