Appeal No. 2002-0508
Application No. 09/225,116
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); accord Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm
Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Also, it is well settled that, in proceedings before the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), claims in an
application must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, taking into account the written description
found in the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). That is,
“[w]hen the applicants state the meaning that the claim terms
are intended to have, the claims are examined with that
meaning...” Zletz, 893 F.2d 321, 13 USPQ2d at 1322.
Here, appealed claim 1 recites the term “pinning layer.”
According to the specification, “[t]he pinning layer 16 changes
the shape of the void.” (Page 8, lines 12-13.) In addition,
the specification enlightens one skilled in the relevant art as
follows (id. at lines 14-21):
The layer 16 is formed from a relatively high density
material such as silicon dioxide (SiO2), phosphorus
doped SiO2, boron phosphorus doped SiO2, or any
material which would shrink less than the layer 14
during the anneal, adheres well to the layer 14, and
is fairly rigid such that it does not expand or shrink
during the anneal relative to layer 14. Such
materials include sputtered silicon, silicon nitride,
CVD or sputtered metal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007