Interference 104,530
Jurgenson v. Dunfield
microactuator can be mounted outside of the distal end and
still be on the rigid portion of the load beam.
Dunfield’s argument that the rigid region of the load
beam is the only place that one having ordinary skill in the
art would mount a second actuator (i.e., the microactuator)
is misplaced. What is at issue is whether a certain feature
is necessarily present in the claims of Dunfield’s parent
application by way of inherency, not what one with ordinary
skill in the art would see fit to do. In any event, prior
art of record that Dunfield discusses in its brief, teaches
or suggests mounting the microactuator, at least partially on
the mounting region, e.g. away from the distal end. For
example, Boutaghou4 teaches an actuator, at least partially
located on the mounting region of the load beam, e.g. on the
end of the load beam opposite the distal end (Boutaghou,
abstract lines 4-7, Fig. 2).
Dunfield’s arguments as to the design considerations
that would lead one to mount the microactuator only on the
rigid region of the load beam are conclusory, and based on
unsupported theories made by the attorney. Argument of
counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the
4 U.S. Patent 5,521,778.
- 22 -
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007