alternative of the parties' claim 2. Lee '558 need only describe an enabling embodiment within
the scope of the count, e.g., Lee claim 2. It need not describe an enabling embodiment for both
alternatives of the count.
As discussed above, van Engelen fails to discuss with any particularity what the '558
application describes, and because of that, its argument is not persuasive. However, we note, that
the '558 application describes a first frame (80 and 114A-1 14D), and a second frame (94 and
102A-102D) that are physically isolated, such that reaction forces from one frame are isolated
from the other frame. As discussed above, when properly interpreted, the '558 application thus
describes two frames that are dynamically isolated. Van Engelen has failed to demonstrate
otherwise. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that van Engelen has satisfied its burden of proof
to sufficiently demonstrate that Lee's '558 application fails to describe an enabling embodiment
within the scope of the count with respect to two frames that are "dynamically isolated" when
that term is correctly interpreted.
A stationary part of the drive unit fastened to the first frame
Lee claim 2 recites a drive unit comprising a stationary part which is fastened to a first
frame of the positioning device. Van Engelen argues that Lee '558 fails to provide support for
any stationary part of the drive unit that isfastened to a first frame (motion at 13). Van Engelen
provides no meaningful explanation as to why the '558 application fails to describe a stationary
part of the drive unit that is fastened to a first frame, and thus has failed to meet its burden to
demonstrate that the '558 application fails to describe the claimed feature. Accordingly, we need
not independently make the determination as to whether the '558 application does describe a
stationary part of a drive unit that is fastened to the first frame.
-16-
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007