with the Snitzer inventors only mention an amplitude mask and do
not mention any discussion Rishton had with either Snitzer or
Prohaska regarding a phase mask or the concept of a phase mask.
That alone is not fatal to Snitzer, since oral corroboration of
conception may by itself be sufficient. However, the lack of
written documentation by Dr. Rishton, despite Snitzer's
explanation that Dr. Rishton only recorded what was important to
him, of phase mask or the concept of a phase mask during the
initial conversation in late July 1992 supports the view that
discussion of a phase mask did not occur in the initial
conversation. We find that Dr. Rishton's testimony is not
sufficiently credible to establish corroboration of the alleged
conception.
Neither Dr. Rishton during cross-examination, nor party
Snitzer sufficiently explain the noted conflicts in Dr. Rishton's
cross-examination testimony. Snitzer, in its reply, argues that
Dr. Rishton was initially referring to a class of grating masks
and that his testimony was consistent in that he did not recall
any other classes of masks being discussed (Paper 306 at 17). It
is not evident that Dr. Rishton was referring only to a class of
masks from his testimony. Dr. Rishton was asked specifically
whether other terms beside grating masks were used by Dr. Snitzer
or Dr. Prohaska during the initial conversation. Dr. Rishton
testified that there were not (Finding 111). The question was
42
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007