No interference-in-fact
Van Engelen argues that if Lee's claims are definite and are supported by Lee's
specification, then there is no interference-in-fact between Lee and van Engelen. Van Engelen,
in its preliminary motion 1, page 18, argues that Lee's claims should be interpreted such that the
"dynamically isolated" frames are physically isolated frames, which is in contrast with van
Engelen's "dynamically isolated" frames which are physically interconnected with a dynamic
isolator. Likewise, in its preliminary motion 2, page 23, van Engelen argues that when the van
Engelen and Lee claims are interpreted in light of the respective specifications, the parties'
claims are limited by their respective specifications, which describe different architecture for the
stationary part of the drive unit that is fastened to the second fi7ame (motion 2 at 23). Van
Engelen, in interpreting the nearly identical involved claims, proposes to import limitations into
the respective parties' claims. The specific structure that van Engelen imports from the
respective specifications is not recited in the parties' claims. For example, Lee claims 4 and 6
recite a relationship between two frames - that the frames are dynamically isolated, and not a
specific structure, as further discussed infra.
In any event, van Engelen fails to sufficiently demonstrate that even if the respective
parties' claims require the structure van Engelen urges that they do, that there is no interference
in-fact. Van Engelen argues that "assuming that the '762 application is prior art to the '666
patent, the disclosure in the '762 application does not anticipate or render obvious van Engelen's
'666 patent. Likewise, the '666 patent does not anticipate or render obvious the properly
construed claims of the '762 application" (motion I at 19, motion 2 at 23). Van Engelen's
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007