11. The claims of the parties which correspond to Count 1 are:
Van Engelen: 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11
Lee: 1-8
12. The claims of the parties which do not correspond to Count I are:
Van Engelen: 4, 7, and 10
Lee: none
13. The level of ordinary skill in the art is defined by the prior art of record.
C. Decision
Van Engelen preliminM motions 1-3
Van Engelen preliminary motions 1-3 are for judgment against Lee on the basis that Lee's
claims 2 and 8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ý 1, or are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §
112, T 2, or that there is no interference-in-fact. As the movant van Engelen bears the burden to
demonstrate that it is entitled to the relief sought. 37 CFR § 1.637(a).
Written Description
Van Engelen argues that Lee's specification fails to provide support for (1) a second
frame that is "dynamically isolated" from a first frame (motion 1), (2) a stationary part of the
drive unit that is fastened to a first frame (motion 2), and (3) a stationary part of the measuring
system fastened to the second frame (motion 3).
Lee original claims I and 4, filed per a preliminary amendment on the day the '763
application was filed, recite all of the limitations that van Engelen asserts are not described in
Lee's specification. Lee claim 2 was amended to be in independent form, but includes all of the
original language in original claims I and 2. Lee claim 8 was amended to be in independent
form, but includes all of the original language in original claims 4 and 8.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007