Appeal No. 2001-2082
Application No. 08/943,146
remaining between the eutectic portion and the substrate (answer,
page 4). The Examiner also asserts that “the Ti layers of Mikkor
are substantially the same as the claimed Ti layers and should
function the same way” (answer, page 5).
Before addressing the Examiner’s rejection based on prior
art, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the
claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitation appearing in the specification are not to be read into
the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed.
Cir. 1985).
A review of claim 1 reveals that the claimed device requires
that the eutectic portion of silicon and gold contain an oxide of
metal that has deoxidized silicon oxide. The device is further
required to include a gold layer between the eutectic portion and
the second substrate. We find that Appellants’ specification and
figures 30-33 clearly describe the mechanism by which titanium
from layer 114 diffuses through gold layer 115 to deoxidize the
naturally oxidized silicon at the surface of silicon substrate
111 (specification, pages 22 & 23). Thus, by deoxidizing silicon
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007