Townsend v Smith Townsend Smith Conception: 10/19/1921 Reduction to practice: 11/10/1921 [Constructive Reduction to Practice: c. 11/14/1921] Townsend Conception: 6/1/1921 Conception: 10/19/1921 Smith

Townsend v Smith P. 444: “Conception consists in the complete performance of the mental part of the inventive art.” “All that remains . . . [is] construction . . .”

Basic Priority Rule “Townsend was the first to conceive and the first to reduce to practice. . . [T]here being no abandonment or negligence since reduction to practice, Townsend is entitled to priority” -- 445

Conceive and R to P within 2 months Townsend’s Timeline Reduction to practice: 6/1/1923 Conception: 6/1/1921 Smith: Conceive and R to P within 2 months

Christie v Seybold Christie Filed: 6/7/1889 R to P: 4/1889 Reduction to practice: 7/12/1886 Filed: 6/7/1889 Conception: Summer 1886 Conception: 10/1885 R to P: 4/1889 Filed: 6/6/1889 Seybold

Legal Standard P. 451: “[T]he man who first reduces an invention to practice is prima facie the first and true inventor, but that the man who first conceives . . . [an invention] may date his patentable invention back to the time of its conception . . .”

The role of diligence “The burden is on the second reducer to practice to show the prior conception, and to establish the connection between that conception and his reduction to practice by proof of due diligence . . .” – p. 452

Christie v Seybold Christie R to P ONLY Seybold’s diligence matters Reduction to practice Conception Conception R to P ONLY Seybold’s diligence matters

Seybold’s Diligence period begins JUST PRIOR to Christie’s Conception Reduction to practice Conception C R to P Seybold’s Diligence period begins JUST PRIOR to Christie’s Conception

35 USC § 102(g)(1) and (2) Interferences – (g)(1) Anticipation – (g)(2) Common priority rule – stated in (g)(2)