Interference No. 105,058
Schaenzer v. Knight
30. In his declaration, with regard to US Patent No. 5,345,353 ("the Krantz '353
patent"), Richard P. Larson states:
The '353 patent does not suggest, show or describe a slide having a
plateau that couples light to a data surface through an evanescent field, a mesa
having a tapered side wall, a tapered side wall that is formed by at least one step
in the mesa, or coils surrounding a stepped mesa.
31. In his declaration, Richard P. Larson further states:
As one skilled in the art of coil design, I am unaware of any public
disclosure, description, or suggestion of the additional structure claimed in claims
3-9 of the '797 patent [Schaenzer's involved patent] prior to January 1, 1998.
32. After submission of the parties'joint preliminary motion 3, the APJ asked
respective counsel of the parties, in a telephone conference call on September 12, 2003, if
Seagate Technology, LLC, the real party in interest of the junior party, could make a
representation with regard to "non-awareness of prior art which disclose use of a mesa [in a
slider] having a plateau (claim 3) and use of a mesa [in a slider] having a tapered side wall (claim
4)." (Paper No. 39 - Summary of Telephone Conference Call)
33. In the conference call of September 12, 2003, counsel for the junior party
represented that he could, on behalf of Seagate Technology, LLC, make the representation, albeit
not having checked with every single engineer employed by Seagate Technology, LLC, that
certain structural features required by Schaenzer's claims 3 and 4 are not disclosed in any known
prior art and that he could particularly specify those features. (Paper No. 39 - Summary of
Telephone Conference Call). On that basis, the APJ authorized the filing by the junior party of a
supplement to joint preliminary motion 3.
_ 8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007