Interference No. 103,995 Paper 29
Morel v. Sekhar Page 12
of zirconium diboride to colloidal silica is greater than 1:1 results in a
materially different coating than a coating formed with lesser amounts of
zirconium diboride. [MAEx 1, p. 3, ¶ 8.]
Dr. Laurent does not reveal or explain the underlying basis for her opinions.
Nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence (applicable to patent interference cases) or
Federal Circuit jurisprudence requires a fact finder to credit the unsupported assertions of
an expert witness. Rohm and Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092, 44
USPQ2d 1459, 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the underlying basis supporting Dr.
Laurent’s opinions are not set out in her testimony, we decline to accord her opinions any
weight.
Here, as argued by Sekhar in its opposition, “[n]o actual tests have been presented
by Dr. Laurent or by the party Morel” evincing whether or not a materially different coating is
formed by coating compositions having weight ratios of zirconium diboride to colloidal
silica of greater than one versus compositions with lesser amounts of zirconium diboride
(Paper 22, p. 3). Moreover, it is not inconsistent with Dr. Laurent’s testimony (see facts 31
and 32 above) that using a less than stoichiometric amount of zirconium diboride would be
expected to produce less borosilicate material, i.e., diminished formation of the glassy
material. Producing less of a product (i.e., glassy material) is not the same as producing a
materially different product. Furthermore, as further argued by Sekhar, the description in
o
the ‘084 patent of its coating composition vitrifying at 600 to 700 C (fact 30, p. 10 above)
appears to include all weight ratio ranges of zirconium diboride and colloidal silica (Paper
22, p. 4). Whether evidence shows unexpected results is a question of fact. In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). On this record, we find the Laurent
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007