Appeal No. 2006-3019
Application No. 09/735,586
record has to show the required diligence or valid
excuses for a lapse. (See Griffith v. Kanamaru, 816
F.2d 624, 625-26, 2 USPQ2d 1361, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
which explores diligence in reduction to practice in
the context of certain allowable excuses, such as
vacations.) We are additionally taking notice of the
wording of the Declarations, such as paragraph #7 of
the Declaration of Counsel, which seems to express a
philosophic point about reasonableness, rather than
present a positive averment that, for example, the
results of a search were studied over a particular span
of time. (E.g. “It is not unreasonable that the
inventor would receive the search results some time
after his attorney received them, that the inventor
would then carefully review these results, and that the
inventor would seek competent representation by a
patent attorney.”) The Appellant has the burden, and
the incentive, to clearly state as many details of the
conception and due diligence as can be justified by his
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013