Sci.Ev. 2006-rjm Week 2 1

Today’s Agenda Housekeeping

Conference on FridayComments/CourseWorkPO/AI

Gould v. Schawlow Ampex

Expert for the PO at trial, post Markman Markman Decision

Next Week

Sci.Ev. 2006-rjm Week 2 2

Housekeeping*Conference this Friday.

Register now (before 5) – or be a walk-in. It’s nicer to have an official name tag. Judge Newman will be there for the first panel discussion, along with some NDCal judges.

*Comments Procedure- Emailing v. CourseWork? - Not seeing anyone else’s answers because you can’t v. honor system posting? - Being able to use MSWord more easily v. Having to use CourseWork

Sci.Ev. 2006-rjm Week 2 3

HousekeepingPO Adam Eltoukhy

Henry HuangAnn Marie Rosas

AI Jason Fan

We can leave things this way, and NOT do wars of experts in the simulations. And/or you can all do a cross-examination of an opposing expert, either because you each get 2 grad students, or because each grad student wears 2 hats, also. Thoughts?

Sci.Ev. 2006-rjm Week 2 4

Gould v. SchawlowThe Franken Shocker

Skill in the art? 1957? 1966?

Order of Testimony

Why do you use the experts you use?

Bender, Franken, theory of the case?

This Just In: Attorney Norm Beamer will visit our class on 10/4 to answer your questions, including the ones you didn’t think to ask.

Side note: Testimony in Interferences (37 CFR 41.157) (before 8/2004, the rules for interferences were in 37 CFR 1.601-690, Subpart E of Part I). And does 35 USC 146 make things different in DDC?

Sci.Ev. 2006-rjm Week 2 5

Gould – page 2 F

A DB EC F

Page layout-EncycBrit rules

Sci.Ev. 2006-rjm Week 2 6

The Franken Shocker and other Testimony

Page 4: Q115?Page 5: PHOSITA: Q117 “in addition”?Page 5: PHOSITAs and Lawyers: Q 118. Is

Franken overprepared? Page 5: Acting Talent: Q119’s Answer.

Read it aloud in different ways.Page 5: Qs 54,60,94 (Imagine if they were

54,55,56.)

Sci.Ev. 2006-rjm Week 2 7

Gould v. Schawlow

Some more questions, italicized or otherwise Page 2: Who wrote the history of the L A S E R?Page 3 n4: Why not?Page 3: Gould’s little admission.Page 6 n6: Why does Schawlow press this? Why

does Court mention it?

Some of your questions.

One of Gould’s patents that claims priority from the 1959 applications - Note the S

Gould ~= Patlex (e.g., Patlex v. Mossinghoff)

Sci.Ev. 2006-rjm Week 2 8

Gould – page 3 C

Sci.Ev. 2006-rjm Week 2 9

Ampex v. Mitsubishi – Luke 1 and 2Your Bests/Gotchas/Roses

Henry: OscilloscopeGotcha 278:10D 208:12 rel addr.X Belusko 271:3 60%

Adam: Well-prepped ExpertGotcha 330:24D 222:22 block diagramX 317:10 Size of Mem

Ann Marie: Big Picture (NPI)Gotcha 291:5D 218:1 Follow up on RAMX 299:2 etc: leading/”correct?”

Jason [Sole AI]: Luke’s ConfusionGotcha: 316:16 Fig 4D 168 Demos – digitiza,rasterX 279-280,291 persistance

Your Worst/Thorns

Henry: 12 Hrs/Lay JuryD 170:4 Word=byteX 312:6 diagram

Adam: Luke Cred,271:4D 230:5 InabaX 324:2 measurement

Ann Marie: Age/POSITAD 245:1 LitInf & MPFX 297:23 Wit Ctrls X

Jason: Wiggling DemoD 244:- Pat LawX OKAY!!!!!

Sci.Ev. 2006-rjm Week 2 10

Ampex v. Mitsubishi – Claim Construction Order

•McKelvie’s reliance on Luke on divide-by-two example(Henry)

•112p6 equivalents and after arising technologies (Adam)

•Cols 13-14, The READ ADDRESS box and HINDSIGHT

•{ann marie, who read the patent last: MPF elements in the claim!}

•{rjm, who also read the patent last: this patent has ZERO to do with PIP, on its face. ~~ Jason’s point above?}

Sci.Ev. 2006-rjm Week 2 11

Ampex v. Mitsubishi – Claim Construction Order and after

Curiosities – room for more wild speculation

* 3 patents asserted.

* Chronology: Luke just testified, and now he does it all again. The problem of emembering what you said to whom…

After: Who won with the jury? Who won on JMOLs? Who won at the Fed Cir? (Or should I let Norm tell you?)