Chronicling the Irrelevance of the Invention Date in U. Additional compilations of prosecution file histories for patents identified as either (1) valuable or (2) worthless supplement these data sets and allow for an evaluation of the differential importance of the novelty rights. However, that approach necessarily ignores ex parte prosecution.He relied upon his own activities and those of his patent attorney to prove diligence.Under pre-AIA 102(g), an inventor may antedate a reference by proving, with corroborated evidence, an earlier conception and reasonable diligence in reducing the invention to practice. In this case, the inventor relied on his filed patent application as a constructive reduction to practice, so he was required to show diligence from just prior to February 10 to May 1, 1998 (the critical period). Nezhat had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he had continuously exercised reasonable diligence throughout the entire critical period.To antedate a reference, an inventor must demonstrate 1) a moment of “” and 2) reasonable diligence towards reducing the invention to practice.In disapproving Cuozzo’s attempt to antedate two prior art patents, the Board applied a strict “independent corroboration” standard, pointing to insufficiently explained gaps in the inventor’s patenting efforts as demonstrating no “continuous exercise of reasonable diligence.” The Board first considered the inventor’s declaration, which stated that he first conceived the invention while receiving a speeding ticket. Cuozzo produced his driving record showing the police cited him for speeding that day.The Board emphasized that the handwritten date of the document alone was unreliable, but that if the signature had been authenticated by testimony “it would serve as effective corroboration.” Absent this or evidence that the document was maintained as a routine business record, the Board rejected it as proof of prior conception.Turning to diligence, the Board found “there must be continuous exercise of reasonable diligence” for the “entire critical period.” Mr.
Rather, the PTAB should have applied the rule of reason to determine if the inventor proved that there was “reasonably continuous diligence.” , Case No. As of that publication date, the inventor, a surgeon named Dr.
In this case, Olympus America filed an IPR petition seeking to cancel claims of U. Patent 6,030,384 directed to a bipolar surgical device.
This clarified standard appears to ease the burden on a party seeking to prove diligence.
the Board rejected Patent Owner’s attempt to antedate 102(a) prior art under the Doctrine of Inurement, finding that insufficient evidence supported a finding that the work of a third party inured to the benefit of Patent Owner.
More specifically, Patent Owner argued that it had communicated the design of the subject matter later claimed in the subject patent (design for a multiple-crock buffet server) to a third party for manufacture of a prototype.