Appeal No. 1997-0547
Application No. 08/020,443
diameter measurement.
In his answer at pages 6 and 7, the examiner essentially
takes the position that the Hurle declaration is "merely
opinionary and does not give supported factual evidence." The
examiner further indicates that there is no factual basis to
support Hurle's definition of a person of ordinary skill in
the art as defined at paragraph 15 of the declaration as one
having at least 3 years of engineering college formal academic
training, 7 years experience of growing crystals, with a
knowledge of the difference between methods of and equipment
for determining a transfer function and for crystal pulling.
Thus, the examiner discounts the opinions set forth in the
Hurle declaration on the grounds that Hurle "merely opined the
level of skill."
While expert opinions expressed without disclosing the
underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based may
be given little or no weight, Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech
Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092, 44 USPQ2d 1459, 1462 (Fed. Cir.
1997), Hurle's definition of a person of ordinary skill in the
art of crystal growing is factually based on Hurle's over 30
years of "pioneering and unbroken research in the field of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007