1 / 11

Today’s Agenda

Today’s Agenda. Housekeeping Conference on Friday Comments/CourseWork PO/AI Gould v. Schawlow Ampex Expert for the PO at trial, post Markman Markman Decision Next Week. Housekeeping. * Conference this Friday.

dalit
Download Presentation

Today’s Agenda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Today’s Agenda • Housekeeping • Conference on Friday • Comments/CourseWork • PO/AI • Gould v. Schawlow • Ampex • Expert for the PO at trial, post Markman • Markman Decision • Next Week 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 Week 2

  3. Housekeeping PO Adam Eltoukhy Henry Huang Ann 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? Week 2

  4. 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? 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. Gould v. Schawlow The 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? Week 2

  5. Page layout- EncycBrit rules A D B E C F Gould – page 2 F 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.) 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) Week 2

  8. Gould – page 3 C Week 2

  9. Ampex v. Mitsubishi – Luke 1 and 2 Your Bests/Gotchas/Roses Henry: Oscilloscope Gotcha 278:10 D 208:12 rel addr. X Belusko 271:3 60% Adam: Well-prepped Expert Gotcha 330:24 D 222:22 block diagram X 317:10 Size of Mem Ann Marie: Big Picture (NPI) Gotcha 291:5 D 218:1 Follow up on RAM X 299:2 etc: leading/”correct?” Jason [Sole AI]: Luke’s Confusion Gotcha: 316:16 Fig 4 D 168 Demos – digitiza,raster X 279-280,291 persistance Your Worst/Thorns Henry: 12 Hrs/Lay Jury D 170:4 Word=byte X 312:6 diagram Adam: Luke Cred,271:4 D 230:5 Inaba X 324:2 measurement Ann Marie: Age/POSITA D 245:1 LitInf & MPF X 297:23 Wit Ctrls X Jason: Wiggling Demo D 244:- Pat Law X OKAY!!!!! 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?} 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?) Week 2

More Related