the disk body. Bernardy has failed to prove conception of a blade having all the
elements of the counts.
F. Reduction to practice by the munior party in 1996
The junior party argues:
... during the fall of 1996 Bernardy opted to produce blades
pursuant to an earlier alternative design, due to intractable
problems both in respect to production and safety.
In support of his claim for reduction to practice in 1996, the junior party has
submitted an affidavit executed by Willfred Schramm (Bernardy Exhibit 8). Although, Mr.
Schramm testifies that he viewed the prototype before July 1996, he doesn't give a
specific date. As such, we can not attribute the activities described in the testimony to a
day earlier than the last day of June 1996.
Mr. Schramm testifies that he viewed prototypes with integrally formed axial
shredding elements which were pressed out of the original disk flats and that there was
no significant structural difference between on the earlier designs he was shown by
Bernardy and the description and claims of the '700 patent.
Mr. Schramm refers to the description contained in the '700 patent without
reference to a line and column in the patent and concludes that there was "no significant
structural difference" between one of the earlier designs he saw in 1996 and the
description and claims of the '700 patent (Bernardy record page 8). The '700 patent
includes a description of the '570 saw blade as well as a description of the '700 blade.
Therefore, it is not clear whether the earlier design seen by Mr. Schramm had no
significant structural difference with regard to the '570 blade described in the '700 patent
-23-
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007