Interference No. 105,058
Schaenzer v. Knight
The parties have been given three chances to submit sufficient evidence to support a
prima facie showing that Schaenzer's claims 3-9 should be designated as not corresponding to
the count. Through their successive submissions as discussed above, it is evident that the parties
are either incapable of making or reluctant to make a specific representation (1) that a slider
including a mesa having a tapered side wall was not previously known, and (2) that a slider
including a mesa having a plateau adapted to couple light to the data surface through an
evanescent field was not previously known. Those features are what the parties now rely on for
patentable distinction of Schaenzer's claims 3-9 over Knight's claims corresponding to the count.
Moreover, in its supplement to preliminary motion 3, the j unior party candidly revealed
that its real party in interest, Seagate Technology, Inc., in connection with the issue of seeking to
designate claims 3-9 as not corresponding to the count, has not
(1) interviewed its employees,
(2) searched through or reviewed its employees records,
(3) searched through or reviewed the files corresponding to the over two thousand issued
U.S. patents assigned to Seagate Technology LLC, or
(4) conducted a prior art search.
Based on the above-noted representation, the parties appear to have no reasonable basis to seek
the relief requested in joint preliminary motion 3. Where there is a burden of proof to overcome,
the admitted failure to conduct a prior art search and concurrent failure to interview pertinent
personnel with regard to the features relied on for patentable distinction and for establishing
- 17 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007