VAN ENGELEN et al. V. LEE - Page 23




                Federal Circuit jurisprudence requires a fact finder to credit the unsupported assertions of an                                   
                expert witness. Rohni and Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092, 44 USPQ2d 1459,                                         
                1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since (1) we do not know how Dr. Kurfess' expertise relates to the                                         
                photolithography or positioning machines in Lee claims 2 and 8, and (2) the underlying basis                                      
                supporting Kurfess' opinion is not set out in his testimony, we do not credit Kurfess' testimony.                                 
                        Further, van Engelen has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the two frames in the                                    
                Micrascan H device were dynamically isolated. Van Engelen states that Lee's first frame 261 is                                    
                physically isolated from the second frame so as not to transfer vibrations between the first frame                                
                and the XY stag , implying that such an arrangement meets the limitation of dynamically isolated                                  
                frames. Van Engelen then concludes, through reliance on Kurfess' unsupported assertions, that                                     
                the Micrascan 11 second frame 170 was dynamically isolated from the first frame 270 by isolators                                  
                180. Van Engelen, however, fails to demonstrate that the Micrascan 11 first frame and second                                      
                frames are dynamically isolated so as not to transfer vibrations between the two frames as it                                     
                asserts. Rather, the Micrascan II system is facially different, with its attached frames, than Lee's                              
                system with its separate frames. While the Micrascan H system does show isolators between the                                     
                two frames, the two frames are also connected by way of tumbuckles 265A. That connection                                          
                would appear to allow at least some vibrations or reaction forces to be transferred between the                                   
                two frames, despite the isolators 180. Yet, van Engelen fails to discuss the isolators or the                                     
                turnbuckle connections between the two frames, so as to provide a persuasive argument that the                                    
                Micrascan 11 frames are dynamically isolated, as that term is applied by van Engelen in the                                       
                context of Lee's claims. Accordingly, van Engelen has failed to establish aprimafacie case of                                     



                                                                     -23-                                                                         






Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007