1. 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

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

3. 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”

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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 . . .”

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 35 USC § 102(g)(1) and (2) Interferences – (g)(1)
Anticipation – (g)(2)
Common priority rule – stated in (g)(2)