Interference No. 104,313
Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.
not normally extend in a vertical direction as is required by the count. Rather, as shown in
Exhibit 2219, the first leg extends in the vertical direction and the second leg extends in a
horizontal direction. In that regard, we recognize that paragraph 52 of Mr. Louis' declaration
(Exhibit 2416) and paragraph 50 of Mr. Johnson's declaration are identical and both read as
follows:
Claim I of the '572 patent defines with specificity which surface of the L
shaped member is the pump mounting surface and which surface is the motor
mounting surface. That orientation reflects the orientation of the center section as
it is and has been manufactured for production. In order to conveniently read
claim 1 of the '572 patent on the drawings of Exhibit 2219, it is necessary to
rotate the drawings 90 degrees.
Sauer appears to assume that a horizontal limitation can be met by a vertical element and
vice versa, simply because one may conveniently rotate a figure to change the horizontal to the
vertical and the vertical to the horizontal. The logic escapes us. If the count requires a metal bar
with a 90 degree angle and the evidentiary proof shows a straight metal bar, certainly one may
not say that in order to have the evidence meet the requirements of the count, one may
conveniently bend the bar into a structure with a 90 degree angle. Evidently, the count is more
specific than what Sauer's evidence shows. Sauer cites to no evidence that the inventor intended
the first leg to have a horizontal disposition at any particular time, except that the drawing can be
rotated to an orientation such that the first leg will appear horizontal. Sauer also cites to no
evidence that the inventor intended the second leg to have a vertical disposition at any particular
- 18 -
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007