The above indicates that reaction forces, e.g., dynamics of the one frame, are not
transmitted to the other frame and are therefore "dynamically isolated." This definition for
dynamically isolated, that the reaction forces are isolated, is a more reasonable interpretation of
the term "dynamically isolated" given the description in Lee's '762 specification and the first
listed definition for dynamic as previously discussed. Van Engelen's definition of "dynamically
isolated", in contrast, is derived from van Engelen's involved specification, and by importing an
element into Lee's claim 4 that simply is not claimed. To the extent that the second alternative of
the count, i.e., van Engelen's claim 10, should be interpreted to mean that there are necessarily
"dynamic isolators" in between the two frames does not mean that Lee's claim 4, the first
alternative of the count should also be interpreted the same way. The count is the disjunctive
alternative of Lee claim 4 and van Engelen claim 10. Lee '558 need only describe an enabling
embodiment within the scope of the count, e.g., Lee claim 4. It need not describe an enabling
embodiment for both alternatives of the count.
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- I 14D), and a second frame (94 and 102A-I 02D) 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
-21-
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007