Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092, 44 USPQ2d 1459, 1462 (Fed.
Cir. 1997): "Nothing in the rules or in our jurisprudence
requires the fact finder to credit the unsupported assertions
of an expert witness." Mr. Utagawa’s above-quoted statement
merely asserts, in a conclusory manner, that a "substantial
improvement" is achieved, without describing the actual
systems used, if any, or revealing
the raw test data, if any. No specific test with particular
components has been identified. It is not known whether the
alleged improvement is achieved with one, two, several, or
many types of actual optical systems.
Moreover, the attachment to the notice declaring the
interference warned the parties not only that evidence in
support
of a preliminary motion must be submitted together with the
motion and not with the reply, but also that (page 8):
A party offering affidavit testimony by an
alleged expert must establish that the affiant is an
expert in the sense of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules
of Evidence. Expert opinion testimony pursuant to
Fed. R. Evid. 703 is entitled to weight only to the
extent the underlying factual basis is provided in
- 24 -
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007