Interference No. 104,314
Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Rules of Evidence or Federal Circuit jurisprudence requires the fact finder to
credit the unsupported assertions of an expert witness).
Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation, we are of the view that the structure as a
whole must generally exhibit an "L" shape, and that it is not enough that a cross-section at some
intermediate part of the structure has an "L" shape. A cross-section captures only a snap shot at a
single location along the entire width or length of a structural member and does not necessarily
reflect the shape of the overall structure, as it is the case here.
Furthermore, Kanzaki points out on page 22 of its brief that even Mr. Alan Johnson,
Sauer's witness, has testified that an object that has other structure attached to it, so it is not as a
whole L-shaped is not an L-shaped center section. Sauer does not dispute that Mr. Johnson has
so testified, but argues that what Mr. Johnson is referring to is an "L-shaped" object and not a
"generally L-shaped" object. The argument is misplaced. The clear import of Mr. Johnson's
testimony is that one must look to the shape of the object as a whole to determine its shape. In
that context, it does not matter if Mr. Johnson at the time of providing the testimony is referring
to an "L-shaped" object or a "generally L-shaped" object. This specific testimony of Mr. Alan
Johnson significantly undermines the unexplained references to structure 48 in Exhibit 2224 as a
generally L-shaped member. Accordingly, Sauer has failed to satisfy its burden of proof
We reject Kanzaki's contention that based on Sauer's prosecution history, i.e., Sauer's
representation that the center section, being L-shaped and having horizontal and vertical legs,
allows one rotating unit to be on the upper surface of the horizontal leg, and the second rotating
- 18 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007