Interference 104,530
Jurgenson v. Dunfield
record. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588,
595, 44 USPQ2d 1610, 1615 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, the
argument is misplaced. Inherency is not determined by what
one with ordinary skill in the art would do when given
various design and practical considerations. A claim need
not be drawn to the most optimal or the most efficient
embodiment.
Based on the record before us, a material limitation of
the interfering subject matter is that the microactuator is
on the rigid region of the load beam (Finding 24). We are
not persuaded by Dunfield’s arguments that its earlier claims
1, 2, 9, and 11, either alone or in combination, implicitly
recite this limitation.
Dunfield further argues that the functional limitation
of movement of the flexure with respect to the rigid region
of the load beam is claimed in its earlier claims 1, 2, 9 and
11 (Paper 84 at 7). However, Dunfield has not sufficiently
demonstrated that its earlier claims even include a rigid
region of a load beam. Therefore, we need not address
Dunfield’s argument regarding movement of the flexure with
respect to the rigid region of the load beam.
Lastly, Dunfield directs us to Thompson v. Hamilton, 152
F.2d 994, 68 USPQ 161 (CCPA 1946) in support of its
- 23 -
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007