Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provencher
from second contacts and not recognize a generic term when no
special condition or qualification is recited.
Mr. Granitz does not explain why where the contacts are all
identical in structure one with ordinary skill in the art would
not accept or comprehend that if certain ones are labeled,
marked, or tagged in some way as Group 1, and the rest are
labeled, marked, or tagged in some way as Group 2, then there are
two groups of contacts, i.e., a plurality of first and second
contacts, even though all contacts are identical in structure.
Merely stating an opinion in a conclusory manner, without
revealing the underlying basis for that opinion, and where the
opinion is on its face illogical, Mr. Granitz has not provided
meaningful support for Preputnick's argument. We do not credit
the concluscry testimony Mr. Granitz with any meaningful weight.
Note that paragraph no. 42 of the Standing Order attached to the
Notice Declaring Interference states:
§ 42 Affidavits of expert witness
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 Rohm and Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 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
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007