"In conclusion, the evidence submitted in a PTAB trial must be carefully selected and tailored for the audience to which it is intended: PTAB judges who are very experienced in patent law and who are highly technically trained. PTAB judges are usually able to read the patents and printed publications relied on by the parties and reach an opinion as to patentability without heavy reliance on expert testimony. It is essential that any filed expert declaration is persuasive and tells a story that is consistent with the weight of other documentation published before the relevant date. Further, challenges to the analysis and conclusions of an expert are best made to the weight the expert’s opinions should be accorded as opposed to a motion"

The above referenced consideration, surmise that a patent owners response be definitive one way or the other. 1. With a motion to exclude an expert (Daubert grounds) or 2. allowing the PTAB to "accord questionable evidence no weight"

Purcell / Handal have proffered both issues to the PTAB without definitive considerations one way or the other.

It's up to the PTAB to do what it feels is necessary after it has reviewed the circumstances presented.

Concluding the analyses of Williams, by patent owners representatives, .the following considerations are ventured to the PTAB for decisions:

"The testimony of Petitioners’ expert, David H. Williams is inadmissible

under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,

Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993) because he is not a

qualified expert having the requisite knowledge, skill, experience, training or

education. In the alternative Mr. Williams’s testimony should be given little to no

weight."

doni