Interference No. 105,058
Schaenzer v. Knight
preliminary motion 1. Preliminary motion 3 was not deemed untimely because it was expressly
authorized by the APJ.
24. On September 10, 2003, the parties re-filed their preliminary motion I as
preliminary motion 3, again seeking to designate claims 3-9 of the junior party as not
corresponding to the count, and also seeking to cancel claims 48 and 57 of the senior party.
25. Schaenzer's claim I is an independent claim directed to an optical disc data storage
system and recites, in pertinent part:
a slider coupled to the distal end of the actuator arm and carrying the transducing
element, the slider having a top surface and an air bearing surface adapted to
move adjacent the data surface as the disc rotates, the slider including a mesa
formed on the air bearing surface and extending from the air bearing surface
toward the data surface and configured to accommodate the coil .....
26. Schaenzer's claim 4 depends directly from claim I and recites: "The optical disc
data storage system of claim 1 wherein the mesa has a tapered side wall."
27. Schaenzer's claims 5-9 each depend either directly or indirectly from Schaenzer's
claim 4 and thus each includes the feature recited in claim 4, i.e., that the mesa on the slider has a
tapered side wall.
28. Schaenzer's claim 3 depends from claim 2, and recites:
The optical disc data storage system of claim 2 wherein the mesa includes
a plateau adapted to couple light to the data surface through an evanescent field.
29. Re-filed preliminary motion 3 relies on a declaration of Richard P. Larson (Exhibit
2007) who is not a named inventor in the junior party's involved application but who had
"worked at Seagate Technology LLC and other predecessor companies" for more than 19 years.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007