Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provencher
skill in the art would assume that a references to a first lead
frame and to a second lead frame necessarily means that the two
lead frames do not have the same structure or configuration. To
the same extent that we do not credit Mr. Granitz's testimony
with regard to first and second contacts, we do not credit his
testimony with regard to a first and a second lead frame.
The way Preputnick has presented its argument has caused
confusion that made the job of its opposing counsel as well as
this panel more difficult than it needed to be. In connection
with its argument that the reference to first and second lead
frame must mean different types of lead frame, Preputnick dropped
the word ýtype" in immediate subsequent discussion on page 12 of
its motion, leading to this statement (page 12, lines 8-9):
ýHowever, the Provencher applications disclose that the same
blank is used to make each of the two half modules. (Fact
4(d))." Despite what it appears to say, the reference to ýsame
blank" does not mean the same actual physical blank, but an
identical version of the same blank. Note that the last sentence
in Fact 4(d) cited by Preputnick reads: 'The blanks used to make
wafers (112, 114) are identical as shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4
(citations omitted.)." T he same confusion is generated by
Paragraph No. 41 of the declaration of Mr. Grantiz, wherein first
he refers to a requirement for 'two different types of lead
- 16 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007