In Davis v. Brouse McDowell, L.P.A., 596 F.3d 1355 (Fed.Cir.2010), summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant because the aggrieved applicant's expert had provided only naked conclusions regarding the patentability of the invention. Id. The Court affirmed the result, but added: We reject the suggestion that Ms. Davis would have had to identify claims for her inventions or perform a patentability analysis similar to that required in an invalidity trial. Ms. Davis's ultimate burden in this case is to establish the likelihood that her inventions would have been held patentable on examination in the PTO.... At the summary judgment stage, she had only to introduce evidence sufficient to establish an issue of material fact as to patentability. Ms. Davis could have satisfied this initial burden in any number of ways.... Mr. O'Shaughnessy plaintiff's expert could have reviewed the prior art references cited in the office actions and discussed their effect on patentability. Id. at 1364.