Interference 104,530
Jurgenson v. Dunfield
21. The examiner in interpreting Dunfield’s involved
claims, determined that the “rigid load beam” is the same as
the “rigid region” of the load beam.
22. Apparently then, the examiner interprets Dunfield’s
claims to mean that a microactuator on the “rigid load beam”
is the same as a microactuator on a particular region of a
load beam, e.g. on the rigid region of the load beam.
23. Neither party disputes that Dunfield’s
microactuator on the “rigid load beam” means a microactuator
on a particular region of a load beam, e.g. on the rigid
region of the load beam (Paper 36 at 12-14; Paper 84 at 4;
Paper 86 at 1; Paper 86 at 5; Paper 88 at 2).
24. The examiner further determined that the
patentable feature of the involved claims was that the
microactuator is on the rigid region of the load beam.
(Dunfield Ex. 1020 at 1 and 4).
25. Jurgenson argues that the microactuator on the
rigid load beam, e.g. on the rigid region of the load beam is
a material limitation (Paper 86 at 10).
26. Jurgenson argues that the limitation is a material
one, since during prosecution of Jurgenson’s claims 1 and 17,
the examiner did not allow the claims until the claims were
amended to add the limitation that the microactuator is
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007