Interference 104,530
Jurgenson v. Dunfield
we need not and have not considered Jurgenson preliminary
motion 2. Accordingly, Jurgenson preliminary motion 2 is
dismissed as moot.
Dunfield Preliminary Motion 3
Because the addition of claims to Dunfield’s application
may keep Dunfield in this interference, we consider Dunfield
preliminary motion 3 to add claims 42-46 to its application.
Dunfield’s proposed claims 42-46, however, depend either
directly or indirectly from Dunfield claim 41.
As stated above, in connection with Jurgenson
preliminary motion 1, Dunfield claims 40 and 41 are barred
under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b). The new claims that Dunfield
proposes to add, claims 42-46 include the limitation of claim
41 that the microactuator is on the rigid load beam (on the
rigid region of the load beam). For the reasons stated
above, Dunfield has failed to demonstrate that its earlier
claims recite, either explicitly or implicitly the material
limitation of a microactuator on a rigid region of a load
beam.
For the same reasons given in connection with Jurgenson
preliminary motion 1, Dunfield’s claims 42-46 do not comply
with 35 U.S.C. § 135(b). Accordingly, Dunfield preliminary
motion 3 is denied.
- 25 -
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007