Interference No. 105,313
Tomita v. Godil
Machines, now a division of Cypress Semiconductor, Inc. and that I made certain
measurements with respect thereto.” (Emphasis added.) We find no statement by Mr. Hunter
in his first declaration that he took measurements “with respect” to a device that had all the
features of the count. The closest testimony in the first declaration is still a long way off:
“I did in fact conduct certain measurements that aided in understanding of the inventionand
related innovations, which are reflected in pages 3-8 of Exhibit C, of Exhibit 1 attached hereto.”
That the measurements James Hunter took were from a device which had all the features
of the count appears to be information added on the basis of his personal knowledge. If that
information is something one with ordinary skill in the art would have known based on the
information provided in the original showing, the second declaration of James Hunter has not
explained how. We do not credit this statement in James Hunter’s second declaration: “In
preparing this Declaration, I have relied exclusively on the materials in my earlier declaration.”
We are not persuaded that Mr. Hunter did not rely on personal knowledge or what he already
knew from having taken the measurements himself.
Other examples abound. In paragraph no. 4 of his second declaration, James Hunter
describes the device from which data was taken to form the upper illustration in Figure 4a. He
states that the device included two sets of ribbons, one moveable with respect to the other to alter
the distance of that set of ribbons from the substrate, He further states that the signal is recorded
as the distance from the substrate to the ribbons is altered. It appears that Mr. Hunter is making
the statement based on his personal knowledge after having seen the device and took
measurements therefrom, since no explanation is offered as to why one with ordinary skill in the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007