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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007