Interference 104,530
Jurgenson v. Dunfield
interfering subject matter. It is facially apparent that the
limitation is missing. No further evidence is required to
instill the duty of going forward on Dunfield.
Dunfield argues that claims 1, 2, 9, and 11 of
Dunfield’s parent application “implicitly” require mounting
the microactuator on the rigid region of a load beam. In
support of this argument, Dunfield argues that Dunfield’s
parent disclosure discloses mounting the microactuator at the
distal end of the load beam and nowhere else.
Dunfield also directs us to exhibits in which
Jurgenson’s expert witness, Mr. Leabch indicates that: (1)
the load beam shown in the Dunfield application is equivalent
to the load beam shown in the Jurgenson patent, and (2) the
rigid region of a load beam makes up most of the load beam,
including the distal end of the load beam (Paper 84 at 6).
Dunfield additionally argues that no one would consider
mounting the microactuator on either the spring region or the
mounting region based on various design considerations.
Dunfield then concludes that the rigid region of the load
beam is the only place that one having ordinary skill in the
art would consider mounting a second actuator (i.e., the
microactuator) (Paper 84 at 7).
- 18 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007