Id. The district court relied on the testimony of the president of La Gard on cross-examination that the lever in the X-07 lock is retained in contact with the slide: Q. With respect to the movable link member of Claim 34, is it correct that in the portion of the X-07 lock that you have identified with the movable link element of Claim 34, no part of the stud which projects from the rear face of the lever is releasable from the channel in the slide and no part of the lever is released by the slide or slide member movement after entry of the combination? A. Yes. Transcript of Trial, at 127-28 (Feb. 7, 1997). We do not find reliance by the district court on this testimony to be reversible error. See Glaxo, Inc. v. Novopharm, Ltd., 110 F.3d 1562, 1567, 42 USPQ2d 1257, 1261 (Fed.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Hence we hold that it was not clear error for
holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that party may not rely on conclusory statements or an argument that the affidavits in support of the motion for summary judgment are not credible holding that criminal defendants are entitled to obtain for impeachment purposes statements made by government witnesses to government agents that relate to the subject matter of the witnesses direct testimony holding that the number of witnesses immunized by the government without more would not support a finding of discriminatory use holding that statements made by witnesses found credible by the district court  provide ample support for the courts factual finding that glaxo failed to prove infringement