Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provencher
This is essentially the same argument as that presented by
Preputnick with respect to the rejected argument that
Provencher's specification does not describe first and second
contacts, only applied to first and second lead frames, and is no
more persuasive than that argument for the same reasons we have
discussed. Preputnick would have us read into Provencher's claim
17 the limiting term 'type of" so that the reference to ýfirst
lead frame" becomes -- first type of lead frame -- , and the
reference to 'second lead frame" becomes -- second type of lead
frame We declin e. There is no basis for such contortion of
the English language. The references in Provencher's claim 17 to
a first lead frame and a second lead frame do not require that
the first and second lead frame be different in structure or
configuration. Preputnick's position is contrary to the ordinary
meaning and usage in the English language. Mr. Granitz makes a
contrary statement in his declaration but his statement is
conclusory. Mr. Granitz does not explain why where two lead
frames are identical in structure one with ordinary skill in the
art would not accept or comprehend that if one of them is
labeled, marked, or tagged in some way as a first lead frame, and
the other is labeled, marked, or tagged in a different way as a
second lead frame, then there is a first lead frame and a second
lead frame. Mr. Granitz does not explain why one with ordinary
15 -
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007