Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provencher
For the foregoing reasons, we reject Preputnick's argument
that Provencher's specification does not have written description
for a plurality of first and second contacts.
Preputnick further argues that Provencher's specification
does not describe the claim feature of ęproviding a second lead
frame having said second contacts." Preputnick cites to the
following disclosure of Provencher as providing just the opposite
(Emphasis in original quotation by Preputnick)(at 8, lines 3-5):
FIG. 4C shows a similar molding operation for wafer
112. The same contacts 410A . . . 41OF can be used to
make wither (sic, either] wafers 112 or 114. The only
difference is in the housina molded around the contacts
(Preputnick Ex. 2003, 1285 application, p.8, 11. 3
S)(Emphasis added).
Also, Preputnick relies on Paragraph No. 41 of Mr. Granitz'
declaration which states, in pertinent part:
Here too, Provencher attempts to find two different
types of lead frames by pointing to the differences of
the overmolded plastic and not to a difference in the
lead frame. This disclosure, however, would not have
reasonably conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art
the use of 'a second lead frame having said second
contacts" as required by Provencher claim 17. To the
contrary, an ordinarily skilled artisan would
understand that this disclosure teaches that only one
lead frame having a plurality of contacts is used to
make both wafers 112 and 114, as expressly stated above
[page 8 of Provencher's specification, lines 3-51.
(Emphasis added.)
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007