Nor does the document satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1746 which requires a
declaration to include a statement that it is done under penalty of perjury. Therefore, for
these reasons, Exhibit 2005, is inadmissible in this proceeding.
We note that even if this document were admissible, it fails to establish reduction
to practice in 1996.
According to the Thompson statement, Mr. Thompson witnessed a blade testing
in September 1996. It is not clear what day in September 1996, Mr. Thompson
witnessed a blade testing. As such, the blade testing could have occurred on any day
in September. Without a specific date, we can not accord a date for these activities
described in this statement earlier than the last day of September 1996.
The Thompson statement does not describe the features of the blade that was
tested. As such, we do not know what was actually tested. Although, the document
states that the blade of the '700 patent was in every "key aspect" an accurate reflection
or identical copy of the blade that was tested, there is no explanation of what is
considered a "key aspect" of the tested blade. Specifically, there is no evidence about
whether a blade that includes these "key aspects" is a blade which includes all the
elements of the counts.
Mr. Schramm testifies four and a half years after the activities testified about
occurred and the Thompson statement, even if it were admissible, was signed nearly
three years after the activities described therein. The testimony of witnesses, speaking
long after the fact from memory in regard to past transactions, in the absence of
contemporaneous documentary or physical evidence, has been held to be of little
-25-
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007