preliminary motion 1, Yamagami opposition 1, and the evidence related to the motion and
opposition in making our decision.
Yamagami argues that we failed to mention, in our decision, that Harari has a burden to
overcome in order for it to prove anticipation (Recon. 6). It is not necessary for an opinion to
state the obvious. Rule 637(a) provides that the movant bears the burden to demonstrate that it is
entitled to the relief requested. That we did not quote the rule in our decision does not mean that
Harari was exempt from meeting its burden of proof. Yamagami has failed to sufficiently
demonstrate that we ignored the burden in rendering our decision. By addressing Yamagami’s
opposition 1, it is inherent that the panel determined that Harari met its burden to demonstrate
that it was entitled to the relief requested in the first place. Accordingly, we see no reason to
amend our decision.
Yamagami disagrees with our determination that the European patent discloses sector re-
mapping. Mere disagreement with a determination made by the panel is insufficient reason to
grant a request for reconsideration.
Having considered Yamagami’s arguments in its request for reconsideration, we grant
Yamagami’s request for reconsideration with respect to that portion of our decision on page 17,
lines 8-11, by deleting the following: “[w]e note that Yamagami’s own expert admits that the
controller 31 performs a logical address to physical address conversion operation in one
embodiment (Exhibit 2001, page 5, paragraph 13).” As noted above, the deletion does not
change our decision to deny Yamagami preliminary motion 1.
Having considered Yamagami’s additional arguments, we conclude that Yamagami has
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007