YAMAGAMI et al. V. HARARI et al. - Page 3




              Yamagami preliminary motion 1 where Yamagami argued that Harari lacked written description                 
              support for Harari claims 63 and 64.  However, as is evident from our seven page discussion                
              addressing Yamagami’s  written description arguments, the panel did consider Yamagami’s                    
              arguments and the evidence that Yamagami directed us to in support of its arguments.                       
              Yamagami, as the requestor for reconsideration of our decision on preliminary motions, must                
              demonstrate how we specifically misapprehended or overlooked an argument made, or evidence                 
              relied upon in support of an argument.  A general argument such as that made by Yamagami                   
              does not provide a basis upon which relief will be granted.                                                
                     Yamagami argues that there is insufficient detailed description of how to make or use the           
              controller 31 to perform the claimed conversion with respect to sector remapping (Recon. 3-4).             
              Yamagami argues that it set forth this point in its preliminary motion through certain Material            
              Facts, in its argument section of the motion, in certain paragraphs of the Kimura declaration, and         
              in its reply 12 (Recon. 3-4).  We find no such argument made by Yamagami in the argument                   
              section of its preliminary motion 1.  To the extent that Yamagami now directs us to statements of          
              facts in Yamagami preliminary motion 1 and passages in the Kimura declaration in support of                
              the new argument, it is too late.  We note that in the argument section of Yamagami preliminary            
              motion 1, there is not a single citation to the Kimura declaration, or to any statement of fact.  It is    
              not the role of the board to play detective with a party’s evidence or statements of facts and come        
              up with an argument for the party.  That is the role of counsel, not judge.  Yamagami should               
              have directed our attention to any statements of facts or to paragraphs of the Kimura declaration          


                     2  In its request for reconsideration, Yamagami argues that it raised the issue on “page 5,         
              line 29 thru page 7.”  (Recon. 4).  We assume that Yamagami is referring to its reply 1, since the         
              reply 1 matches the description given by Yamagami.                                                         
                                                           3                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007