Interference No. 103,640
identifies himself and his employer. We fully credit Edelman
as an expert in, at least, plastic zipper profile extrusion,
although his experience with form, fill, and seal machines is
somewhat limited. IR118-119. 8 In ¶3 Edelman states the legal
conclusion that it would not have been obvious to combine the
teachings of the ‘787 and the ‘533 Ausnit patents. With respect
to this paragraph, we are in agreement with the APJ that an
expert’s opinion on the legal conclusion of obviousness is
entitled to no weight. "An expert's opinion on the ultimate
legal conclusion is neither required nor indeed 'evidence' at
all." Mendenhall v. Cedarapids Inc. , 5 F.3d 1557, 1574,
28 USPQ2d 1081, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S.
1031 (1994) (quoting Nutrition 21 v. United States , 930 F.2d 867,
871 n.2, 18 USPQ2d 1347, 1350-51 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). See also
Avia Group Int'l, Inc. v. L.A. Gear Cal., Inc. , 853 F.2d 1557,
1564, 7 USPQ2d 1548, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In any event, we
additionally point out that the declaration does not qualify
the declarant as an expert in patent law.
In ¶3, Edelman premised his conclusion on an alleged
8 Here again, we point out that our consideration of the
Edelman record has only been to the extent of considering the
cross-examination that is pertinent to the first Edelman declara-
tion.
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007