Interference No. 103,036
sense, that does not constitute an admission that nonconductive
does not mean thermally nonconductive. We are not persuaded that
Dr. Powers admitted that the nonconductive layer of the device of
Figure 10 is thermally conductive.
We have given weight to Dr. Powers’ testimony and find
his testimony credible, since it is consistent with the testimony
adduced from witnesses associated with the opposing parties. To
the extent the party Cataldi et al. urges that Dr. Powers’
testimony is not credible, because he could not determine whether
Figure 10 of the Burroughs et al. patent was a top view or a side
view (see our decision on item 1, supra), he accurately depicted
his figure P-1, at paragraph 20, as a side view.
Consequently, we hold that the Burroughs et al.
specification contains a written description for the limitation,
"sufficient means under one of its [the conductive layer's]
surfaces to permit the heat generated" by the conductive layer to
change the color of the temperature sensitive color indicator, of
reissue claims 16, 18 to 20, 22 and 23. For the foregoing
reasons, the motion is denied as to item 5.
In item 6, the motion urges that the Burroughs et al.
specification does not contain a written description for the
limitation, "means between the conductive layer and the battery
housing to permit" the heat generated by the conductive layer to
change the color of the temperature sensitive color indicator
-48-
Page: Previous 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007