Appeal No. 2002-0730 6
Application No. 09/410,250
claim 1. The principal issue before is whether the aforesaid limitation distinguishes the
claimed electrolytic solution over the prior art admittedly directed to an electrolytic
solution having the same composition.
It is well settled that, A[i]f, however, the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets
forth the complete invention, including all of its limitations, and the preamble offers no
distinct definition of any of the claimed invention=s limitations, but rather merely states, for
example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is of no
significance to claim construction because it cannot be said to constitute or explain a claim
limitation.@ See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305,
51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165-66 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473,
478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a
structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a
purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"). We
conclude that the preamble to claim 1, Afor electroplating copper circuitry in trenches and
vias in dielectric material on semiconductor chips,@ falls within the specific area wherein the
preamble states a purpose or intended use of the invention. Accordingly, It cannot be
construed as constituting or explaining a claim limitation.
Neither are we convinced by appellants= argument that, Athe existing literature
clearly teaches away from the use of a bath such as that described in Morrissey for chip
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007