Interference 104,530
Jurgenson v. Dunfield
arguments. Dunfield fails to sufficiently discuss or explain
in any meaningful way how the Thompson case relates to the
facts in this case. Dunfield merely quotes certain passages
from the Thompson case, but fails to provide an analysis of
the facts in the Thompson case compared to the facts in this
case.
Based on the recent decision in In re Berger, we are not
persuaded that Thompson is controlling or applicable to the
issues at hand. Dunfield has failed to demonstrate
otherwise.
For the above reasons, Dunfield has failed to
sufficiently demonstrate that its earlier filed claims 1, 2,
9 and 11 of its parent application (08/438,091) include the
material limitation of a microactuator on the rigid region of
a load beam. Accordingly, Jurgenson preliminary motion 1 is
granted.
Jurgenson Preliminary Motion 2
Although Dunfield’s involved claims are barred under 35
U.S.C. § 135(b)(1), we address the additional threshold
question raised by party Jurgenson of whether there is an
interference-in-fact. Jurgenson has made its preliminary
motion 2 contingent upon the denial of Jurgenson preliminary
motion 1. Since Jurgenson preliminary motion 1 is granted,
- 24 -
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007