Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provencher
either wafers 112 and 114 and does not support any argument that
the same physical blank is used to make both wafers 112 and 114.
For the foregoing reasons, we reject Preputnick's argument
that Provencher's involved specification does not describe
providing a first lead frame and also providing a second lead
frame.
Finally, Preputnick argues that Provencher's specification
does not describe the claimed overmolding step performed on
second contacts in the second lead frame. This argument is
dependent on Preputnick's two arguments already rejected above.
Preputnick's notion is that because Provencher's specification
does not describe second contacts or a second lead frame having
the second contacts, there is no description for an overmolding
step which overmold the intermediate portions of the second
contacts on the second lead frame. we have rejected Preputnick's
two underlying arguments and we have also already rejected
Preputnick's assertion that in Provencher's specification the
same physical blank is used to make both wafers. Accordingly,
the argument about there being no description for overmolding
second contacts on the second lead frame is without merit.
Preputnick's preliminary motion 3 alleging that Provencher's
claims 17-19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007