Interference No. 104,649
Page No. 35
contains two instances where the term "refracted" is used to describe light rays that one skilled in
the art would understand to be "reflected" light rays. While it is not apparent that the two
instances where the term "refracted" is misused are "typographical" errors, it is apparent from the
record that one skilled in the art would understand that the term "refracted" in these two
instances was erroneous and that the rays were "reflected." Specifically, one skilled in the art
would appreciate that rays 31, 33 and 35 in Figure 3 and rays 52' and 53' in Figure 6 are totally
internally reflected, (KX 1007, Declaration of Yury Shapiro, IT 12, 13, 15 and 16).
Zhou has argued that Keagy describes the operation of Keagy Figure 10 in terms of
refraction. As testified by Yury Shapiro, Keagy Figure 10 depicts an embodiment that involves
the formation of a negative image, i.e., white ridges and dark valleys for the fingerprint. In
contrast, Figures 3, 7A and 7B are directed to "positive" images, i.e., dark ridges and white
valleys, that are discussed in terms of "reflection." (KX 1007, Declaration of Yury Shapiro,
17). As such, Figure 10 and Keagy's description of that depiction are consistent.
To the extent the testimony of Professor Neifeld differs from that of Yury Shapiro on the
issue of written description, we credit the testimony of Yury Shapiro. More particularly, based
on the facts as they have been presented to us, we give little weight to the testimony of Professor
Mark A. Neifeld who concluded that Keagy's specification is so inadequate that one skilled in
the art would not recognize that it describes the invention set forth in Keagy's corresponding
claims. (ZX 2010, Zhou's First Declaration of Prof Mark A. Neifeld, p. 13, 134). Keagy's '744
specification, including the drawings and claims, adequately describes the invention set forth in
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007