Ex Parte LEE - Page 35




               isolator." However, van Engelen has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the term "dynamic                                      
               isolator" has a common meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art that would require a structure                                  
               of something more than a bellow diaphragm air cylinder as taught in Akutsu.                                                        
                       Dr. Kurfess, van Engelen's expert, does not assert that a dynamic isolator, as that term is                                
               understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, requires a complex structure other than an air                                     
               cylinder. Rather, Dr. Kurfess states that, given the complex structure of the dynamic isolator,                                    
               disclosed in '666, that one of ordinary skill would not have known how to assemble a dynamic                                       
               isolator and actuator as described in van Engelen's involved '666 patent (Ex. 2042 T56). The                                       
               structure of the dynamic isolator and actuator are not claimed. Furthermore, van Engelen has                                       
               failed to sufficiently explain why the specific structure of van Engelen's dynamic isolator must                                   
               be considered in determining obviousness. Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable                                         
               interpretation. Importing limitations into the claims from the specification is impermissible. For                                 
               these reasons, van Engelen has failed to sufficiently rebut Lee's primafacie case with respect to                                  
               van Engelen claims 8, 18, and 19.                                                                                                  

                       For all of the reasons discussed above, Lee preliminary motion 2 is granted.                                               
                       Lee prelimingy motions 3, 4 and 7                                                                                          
                       Lee moves for judgment against van Engelen on the basis that several of van Engelen's                                      
               claims (including newly added claims 5-9, 13-16, and 18-22) are unpatentable over certain prior                                    
               art. Van Engelen has failed to allege a date prior to van Engelen's effective filing date.                                         
               Furthermore, van Engelen's preliminary motion 8 attacking the benefit granted Lee is denied.                                       
               Accordingly, judgment will be entered against van Engelen. There is then no occasion to                                            
               consider Lee's preliminary motions farjudgment against van Engelen. For these reasons, Lee                                         
               preliminary motion 3, 4, and 7 are dismissed.                                                                                      





                                                                     -35-                                                                         






Page:  Previous  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007