Todays Agenda Housekeeping Conference on Friday CommentsCourse Work

Today’s Agenda § Housekeeping §Conference on Friday §Comments/Course. Work §PO/AI § Gould v. Schawlow § Ampex § Expert for the PO at trial, post Markman § Markman Decision § Next Week Sci. Ev. 2006 -rjm Week 2 1

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. Course. Work? - 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 Course. Work Sci. Ev. 2006 -rjm Week 2 2

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? Sci. Ev. 2006 -rjm Week 2 3

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? 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 4

Gould – page 2 F Sci. Ev. 2006 -rjm Page layout. Encyc. Brit rules AD BE CF Week 2 5

The Franken Shocker and other Testimony Page 4: Q 115? Page 5: PHOSITA: Q 117 “in addition”? Page 5: PHOSITAs and Lawyers: Q 118. Is Franken overprepared? Page 5: Acting Talent: Q 119’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 6

Gould v. Schawlow Some more questions, italicized or otherwise Page 2: Who wrote the history of the L A S E R? Page 3 n 4: Why not? Page 3: Gould’s little admission. Page 6 n 6: 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 7

Gould – page 3 C Sci. Ev. 2006 -rjm Week 2 8

Ampex v. Mitsubishi – Luke 1 and 2 Your Bests/Gotchas/Roses Your Worst/Thorns 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 Sci. Ev. 2006 -rjm Week 2 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 Lit. Inf & MPF X 297: 23 Wit Ctrls X Jason: Wiggling Demo D 244: - Pat Law X OKAY!!!!! 9

Ampex v. Mitsubishi – Claim Construction Order • Mc. Kelvie’s reliance on Luke on divide-by-two example(Henry) • 112 p 6 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 10

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? ) Sci. Ev. 2006 -rjm Week 2 11