Appeal No. 2005-2512
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,431
That testimony, though conclusory, is clearly supported by the similarities between the
subject matter disclosed in the RailMill documents and the subject matter disclosed and
claimed in the ‘952 patent. While Ho’s declaration preferably should have explained
that his conclusory testimony is based on those similarities, such an explanation is not
required where, as here, the testimony finds clear support in those similarities. It is also
significant that Ho’s testimony regarding inventorship of the RailMill subject matter does
not conflict with (1) the RailMill documents themselves, which do not name any authors,
let alone appear to attribute the disclosed subject matter to the authors, as in Katz, or
(2) any other evidence of record regarding inventorship, as in Kroger.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Second Ho Declaration is sufficient to
establish that to the extent the RailMill documents disclose the RailMill power net
simulation engine, associated transistor network simulation engine, and use of
ChipViewer to display the output of the power net simulation engine (which is virtually all
of the subject matter disclosed in those documents), they are not prior art with respect
to appellant’s claims.
35
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007