Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
the affidavit. Cable Electric Prod. v. Genmark, 770
F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881, 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(Emphasis added.)
Further still, it is anyone’s guess how much improvement
constitutes a "substantial improvement." Since we do not know
how much improvement constitutes "substantial improvement,"
the assertion of substantial improvement is not very
meaningful. The Figures referred to in Exhibits A and B
attached to Mr. Utagawa’s first declaration are not marked
with specific units on any axis in the graphs and do not
appear to record actual test data. Rather, they appear to be
graphical illustrations or translations of what Mr. Utagawa
has said in words and are just as conclusory. Saying the same
thing twice, albeit in different forms, does not
make an unsubstantiated conclusion any more believable or con-
vincing. Also, here, the fact that Mr. Utagawa is a co-
inventor makes lack of presentation of the underlying factual
basis and specific data in support of Mr. Utagawa’s opinion
even a little more suspect.
Even assuming that substantial improvements are shown,
- 25 -
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007