Interference 104,530
Jurgenson v. Dunfield
a second interactive element operably coupled to the air
bearing; and
wherein current controllably provided to the second coil
tends to cause movement of the second interactive element
relative to the second pole piece.
43. None of Dunfield claims 1, 2, 9 or 11, either alone
or in combination, explicitly recite a microactuator on a
rigid region of a load beam, or a microactuator on the rigid
load beam as recited in Jurgenson’s involved claims or
Dunfield’s involved claims.
Jurgenson preliminary motion 1 and brief
regarding issue 1
44. Jurgenson argues that Dunfield claim 40 and claim
41 are barred under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b) since the subject
matter of claim 40 and claim 41 was not made within one year
of the issue date of the involved Jurgenson patent.
45. It is not disputed, for the purpose of Jurgenson
preliminary motion 1, that Dunfield claims 40 and 41 are
directed to the same or substantially the same subject matter
as Jurgenson’s involved patent claims3 (Paper 60 at 12 and
Paper 36 at 7-8).
3 During oral argument, counsel for Jurgenson indicated
that Dunfield claim 40 and claim 41 are directed to the same or
substantially the same subject matter as Jurgenson’s involved
claims, e.g. claim 1 and claim 17 for purposes of its preliminary
motion 1.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007