the recitations of Claims 24 and 19.
Herman IDD (Herman Exhibit 2006):
"Skill in the art".
Herman NDI (Herman Exhibit 2012):
"Skill in the art".
'679 Patent (Herman Exhibit 2001):
Column 10, lines 17-21. (Herman Ex. 2021, page 42).
C. Discussion
Procedural Matters
Herman's second substitute preliminary motion 1 lacks the necessary cohesiveness
between facts, evidence and arguments. Judge Lee explained earlier in this proceeding, in a
paper dismissing Hermans' second submission of its preliminary motion I (entitled substitute
preliminary motion 1) the importance of explaining how the evidence and facts support an
argument. A portion of that decision is as follows:
The argument section, Section D, appears on pages 9-11 of the preliminary
motion. Within these pages, there is not a single citation to the evidence in support of the
arguments made, and also not any explanation as to why such evidence supports the
arguments. A proper motion shall contain specific citation to the supporting evidence and
an explanation as to how the evidence cited supports the arguments made. A reference to
a particular statement of fact is acceptable if that statement of fact is exactly on point and
in turn contains a specific citation to the underlying evidence. Even then, there still may
be a need for explanation which ties the cited evidence to the argument made.
It is not sufficient for a moving party to simply make arguments. Nor is it
sufficient for a moving party to make arguments and then submit a batch of evidence
without associating each argument with the evidence in support of that argument. Even
when such association is made, an explanation to relate the evidence to the associated
argument may still be necessary (Paper 28 at 2).
Herman was given another opportunity to amend his preliminary motion. The motion we
have before us, however, suffers from some of the same maladies as those in Herman's substitute
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007