iv. Many of Shiokawa’s Assumptions Regarding the Guidance Provided
by the ‘146 Patent are Unsupported
Shiokawa attempts to lead us away from the plain language of the ‘146 patent with assumptions
that are based primarily upon unsupported declaration testimony. For example,
Shiokawa repeatedly directs our attention to Dr. Pearson’s declaration testimony as support for their
assumptions regarding the guidance provided by the ‘146 patent. Nothing in our rules or in our
jurisprudence, however, requires us to credit the unsupported assertions of an expert witness. Cf.
Rohm & Hass Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092, 44 USPQ2d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
There are many instances where Shiokawa’s statements and Dr. Pearson’s declaration
testimony appear unsupported by the evidence. For instance, Shiokawa and Dr. Pearson fail to identify
sufficient evidentiary support for: (1) why one skilled in the art would be directed to classify the
compounds of Table 1 into their “core-heterocycle” groups; (2) how the ‘146 patent guides one skilled
in the art to classify the “core-heterocycles” of Table 1 into four groups with Group I being:
B
N N
X Y
38
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007