Ex Parte JOHNSON - Page 18




             Interference No. 104,315                                                                                    
             Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.                                                              

             testimony of Mr. von Kaler and while giving the terni "generally L-shaped" its broadest                     
             reasonable interpretation. Note that Paragraph No. 42 in the Standing Order states:                         
                           Affidavits expressing an opinion of an expert must disclose the underlying                    
                    facts or data upon which the opinion is based. See Fed R. Evid. 705 and 37 CFR                       
                    §§ 1.639(b) and 1.671(b).                                                                            
                           Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be                     
                    given little, or no, weight. See Robin and Haas Co. v. Brotech Co1p., 127 F.3d                       
                    1089, 1092, 44 USPQ2d 1459, 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Nothing in the Federal                            
                    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               

                                                       - 18 -                                                            







Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007