or the '700 blade itself. The '570 blade did include openings in the disk body but these
openings were disposed radially inward of the cutting segments. As such, Mr.
Schramm's testimony does not establish that a blade design in which the openings were
outward of the juncture as required by the count was in existence as of June 30, 1996.
In addition, Mr. Schramm does not explain what is meant by the phrase
"significant structural difference." As Mr. Schramm does not describe the features of the
earlier blade he saw in any detail, his testimony does not establish that the blade viewed
by Mr. Schramm included all the elements of the count. For example, Mr. Schramm
does not discuss the shape of the cutting segments. As such, the blade he viewed
could have had a shape other than the generally curved triangular shape required by the
counts and not had any "significant structural difference" in the mind of Mr. Schramm
with a blade with triangularly shaped cutting segments. In addition, Mr. Schramm's
testimony does not establish whether the openings in the blade he saw were positioned
radially outward of the cutting segments.
Mr. Schramm indicates that he viewed several blade designs. We do not know
what Mr. Schramm means by the word "designs." Are these "designs" drawings or
physical blades. In order for Mr. Schramm's affidavit to be evidence of reduction to
practice, it must relate to an actual physical blade prototype not a drawing. The
junior party has also submitted a statement signed by Ronald Thompson (Bernardy
record, page 11 ). This stat ement is not testimony because it does not satisfy the
requirements of 37 CFR § 1.68 that a declaration which is admissible in this proceeding
warn that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment.
-24-
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007