Interference 104,530
Jurgenson v. Dunfield
Dunfield does not dispute Jurgenson’s argument that the
limitation of the microactuator mounted on the rigid region
of the load beam is a material one. Based on the record
before us, a material limitation of the interfering subject
matter is mounting the microactuator on the rigid region of
the load beam (Findings 24-27). Apparently both parties
agree. Still further, it appears that both parties agree
that Dunfield’s claims 40 and 41 when properly interpreted,
specify that the microactuator is on the rigid region of a
load beam (Findings 23).
Dunfield’s “implicit” argument appears to go something
like this: (1) because Dunfield’s earlier specification
describes mounting the microactuator only on the distal end
similar to Jurgenson’s specification, and (2) since prior art
along with design considerations would suggest mounting the
microactuator only on the rigid region of the load beam, (3)
then Dunfield’s earlier claims include mounting a
microactuator on the rigid region of the load beam. We are
not persuaded by Dunfield’s “implicit” argument for the
following reasons.
Dunfield compares its earlier specification with
Jurgenson’s involved specification to demonstrate that the
disclosures are similar. Dunfield further directs us to its
- 19 -
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007