Interference 104,530
Jurgenson v. Dunfield
46. Jurgenson asserts that Dunfield claims 1, 2, 9 and
11 of Dunfield’s parent application are not directed to the
same or substantially the same subject matter as recited in
Jurgenson’s claims or as recited in Dunfield’s involved
claims (Paper 60 at 15 and Paper 86 at 1).
Dunfield’s Opposition and Brief Regarding Issue 1
47. In its opposition to Jurgenson’s preliminary motion
1, Dunfield argues that Jurgenson failed to meet its burden
of proof, since Jurgenson compared Dunfield’s earlier claims
with Jurgenson’s involved claims.
48. Dunfield argues that Jurgenson should have compared
Dunfield’s earlier claims with Dunfield’s involved claims
(Paper 36 at 8).
49. Dunfield, in its brief regarding issue 1, argues
that its earlier claims 1, 2, 9 and 11 of its parent
application “implicitly” require mounting the microactuator
on the rigid region of the load beam (Paper 84 at 5 and Paper
88 at 3).
C. Discussion
Jurgenson moves under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) for judgment
against Dunfield on the ground that Dunfield claims 40 and
41, corresponding to Counts 1 and 2 respectively, are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b).
- 15 -
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007