Interference 104,530
Jurgenson v. Dunfield
16. Jurgenson claims 1 and 17 further recite that a
microactuator is on the rigid region.
17. Dunfield claims 40 and 41 do not recite a load beam
with a mounting region, a spring region, or a rigid region.
18. Dunfield claims 40 and 41 recite a rigid load beam.
19. Dunfield claims 40 and 41 recite a microactuator
mounted on the rigid load beam.
20. In a statement recommending an interference, the
examiner explained the difference between Dunfield’s claims
40 and 41 and Jurgenson’s claims 1 and 17 regarding the load
beam as follows:
“[W]ith regard to the load beam, the conventional
construction of a load beam, which has been stated on
lines 2-5 of Claim 1 [Jurgenson patent], provides that
the load beam includes, inter alia, a ‘proximal end’
[mounting region] (used to mount the load beam to the
actuator arm); a ‘spring region’ which allows the
‘distal end’ and the ‘rigid region’ to move relative to
the ‘mounting region’ of the load beam; and the ‘rigid
region’ which can vary in shape and size but constitutes
a more/less inflexible structure connecting the gimbal
or flexure to the spring region. See Frater ... spring
region 124; rigid region between flanges 120, mounting
region 100. Note; the feature or region to which “rigid
load beam” referred to in Cl. 40, line 4, of ....
[Dunfield’s involved claim 40] is in fact the rigid
region of the load beam.” (Dunfield Ex. 1020 at 3-4).
(Emphasis added).
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007