a first frame (motion at 17). At the heart of van Engelen's argument is the meaning of the term
"dynamically isolated."
Van Engelen argues that the '558 application fails to support the broadest reasonable
interpretation of "dynamically isolated." The broadest reasonable interpretation of "dynamically
isolated", van Engelen argues, comes by way of definition for the terms isolated and dynamically.
Van Engelen argues that:
The term isolated is a verb which means "separate from a group or whole and set
apart." (Exh. 2015: Definition, page 956). The term "dynamically" is the adverbial form
of the word "dynamic", which is defined as being "[c]haracterized by continuous change,
activity, or progress." (Exh. 2016: Definition, page 574). Thus, in the context of the
claim language, the term "dynamically" is modifying how the second frame is "isolated"
from the first frame. The broadest reasonable meaning of these words requires that the
second frame be isolated from the first frame in a manner that is characterized by
continuous change, activity orprogress.
There is nothing in either the '375 or '558 application that shows such an
invention. To the extent that the '375 application or the '558 application discloses
separating the reaction frame from the XY stage support frame, that separation is not
characterized by continuous change, activity or progress but is static, physical isolation.
(See Exh. 2012: Kurfess Decl., 152 (regarding '762 application)). In fact, in the '558
application, Lee explains that reaction forces are transmitted independently to the earth's
surface by a structure that is physically isolated from the support frame. (Exh. 2032: '558
Appln., page 3, line 27 - page 4, line 11, page 9, lines 7-25; see also Exh. 2012: Kurfess
Decl., ý 48 (regarding '762 application) (emphasis in original) (motion at 15).
We understand van Engelen's definition of "dynamically isolated" to require that the
frames be isolated dynamically - that there necessarily be something in between the two frames
that provides the isolation, i.e. that the frames be physically interconnected with dynamic
isolatorS3. Van Engelen does not dispute that the '762 application as well as the '558
specification describe physically separate frames. Van Engelen does, however, disagree that two
During oral argument, counsel for van Engelen so represented (Paper 128 at 17-18).
- 18-
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007