and the Cobra Limited have two sets of two twisted pairs, each set having a unique insulation thickness. Moreover, in these cables, each twisted pair has a twist lay that is different from each other pair. Instead, Superior Essex argues that Belden has not demonstrated that the insulation thickness for each group “is consistent with providing a nominal characteristic impedance for each conductor pair of the ... group within desirable limits and an acceptable signal attenuation” as required by the claim language. This eonelusory statement, lacking any citation to the record that would indicate the presence of a dispute in this regard, does not create a genuine issue of material fact. See Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Machinery, Ltd., 731 F.2d 831, 835-36 (Fed. Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, judgment that the aforementioned
holding nonmoving partys affidavit created genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an employment relationship holding that mere allegations do not create a material issue of fact if the nonmovant cannot point to an evidentiary conflict created on the record at least by a counter statement of a fact or facts set forth in detail in an affidavit by a knowledgeable affiant holding that a plaintiff cannot create an issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment through an affidavit that contradicts prior testimony holding that a speculative affidavit which contained mere conjecture was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial recognizing that affidavit cannot create issue of material fact if it conflicts with affiants interrogatory responses but finding no conflict in that particular case