Appeal No. 2004-0721
Application No. 09/401,409
consequence of yielding to these arguments would be to read a
limitation of the specification into these claims.
We reach this determination for a number of reasons.
First, there is a heavy presumption that a claim term
carries its ordinary and customary meaning. Amgen Inc. v.
Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc., 314 F.3d at 1327, 65 USPQ2d at 1394.
As previously indicated, the appellants at least implicitly have
conceded that the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim
term “on” encompasses the interpretation urged by the examiner
whereby the here claimed depositing step may be regarded as
encompassing Xu’s step of depositing an oxide indirectly on a
low-k dielectric material. Though such a claim interpretation is
broad, it is not unreasonable or inconsistent with the
appellants’ specification since the specification contains no
restricted definition of the term “on” which would require the
more narrow claim construction asserted by the appellants. See
In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d at 1372-73, 54 USPQ2d at 1668.
In addition, it is significant that the subject
specification disclosure does not in any way exclude an
embodiment in accordance with the examiner’s claim interpretation
wherein the appellants’ oxide is deposited indirectly on the low-
k dielectric material. For example, the etch-back and other
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007