Interference No. 103,878
285 (1892)(contentions regarding certain unpatented devices
the
existence of which are only proven by oral testimony are
subjected to the closest scrutiny). But see Thomson S.A. v.
Quixote Corp., 166 F.3d 1172, 49 USPQ2d 1530 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 2395 (1999). Accordingly, Kenyon's
testimony as to a prior use is entitled to but little weight.
Turning to the declarations’ discussions of the
obviousness of the senior party’s claims, we merely point out
that "an expert's opinion on the legal conclusion of
obviousness is neither necessary nor controlling." Avia Group
Int'l, Inc. v. L. A. Gear Cal., Inc., 853 F.2d 1557, 1564, 7
USPQ2d 1548, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The question of
patentability is a matter of law which we must decide. See In
re Vamco Machine and Tool Co., 752 F.2d 1564, 224 USPQ 617
(Fed. Cir. 1985).
We find no merit in the junior party’s contention
that the affidavits conclusively establish that their
invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
31
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007