Interference No. 103,036
understand the figures in the Kiernan et al. patent and could37
not interpret Figure 10 of the party Burroughs et al.'s38
specification, Dr. Powers' testimony with respect to these39
matters should be given no weight. We decline to accord
Dr. Powers' testimony no weight, but rather will evaluate his
testimony insofar as it relates to the matters which we must
decide.
The motion under consideration urges that the Burroughs
et al. specification lacks written description for 14 limitations
recited in its claims. For ease of reference, we have retained
the same numbering, i.e., items 2 to 15, as in the party Cataldi
et al.'s main brief.
The party Cataldi et al. relies upon its proposed findings of37
fact Nos. (197) to (205) to support its conclusion that Dr. Powers
did not understand the Kiernan patent.
The Burroughs et al. patent specification, column 5, lines 5038
to 52, states that Figure 10 is "a top plan view." Other figures,
i.e. 1, 1A, 4, and 11, are also identified as top views or top plan
views. A review of these figures shows that they are not standard
top views, but rather are a hybrid between a top view and a side
view. Since we are able to ascertain what these figures depict, we
have no doubt that one skilled in the art would also be able to
ascertain what they depict.
The party Cataldi et al. relies upon its proposed findings of39
fact Nos. (206) to (214) to support its contention concerning Figure
10.
-20-
Page: Previous 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007