Interference 104,530
Jurgenson v. Dunfield
earlier specification to demonstrate that its disclosure
supports mounting an actuator on a rigid region of a load
beam. Dunfield’s focus on disclosures is not particularly
relevant to analyzing Dunfield’s earlier claims 1, 2, 9 and
11 for purposes of § 135(b).
The inquiry is whether Dunfield’s earlier claims include
the material limitation of mounting the microactuator on the
rigid load beam, i.e. on the rigid region of the load beam.
That the Dunfield and Jurgenson disclosures are similar, or
that Dunfield’s earlier specification supports Dunfield’s
involved claims is not indicative of whether Dunfield’s
earlier claims are drawn to the same or substantially the
same subject matter as that of Dunfield’s current claims.
Dunfield appears to take the position that because its
specification describes a microactuator only on the distal
end of the load beam (which Dunfield argues is part of the
rigid region of the load beam), then its earlier claims
inherently recite mounting a microactuator on the rigid
region of the load beam. The argument is rejected. There is
no basis to consider a missing feature inherent simply
because the only described embodiments include that feature.
It frequently is the case that not every single possible
embodiment is described or discussed and that a claim is
- 20 -
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007