Appeal No. 2004-0721
Application No. 09/401,409
problems solved by the present invention (e.g., see the last two
paragraphs on page 1 in comparison with the first paragraph on
page 2 of the specification) are unrelated to the interface
between the appellants’ oxide and his low-k dielectric material.
Indeed, the disclosure of the subject specification and drawing
does not in any way characterize this interface as being critical
or even relevant to the appellants’ invention or the objectives
thereof. Thus, while this disclosure would convey to an artisan
that the appellants’ invention includes an embodiment wherein the
oxide is deposited directly on a low-k dielectric material, it
certainly does not convey that the appellants’ invention excludes
an embodiment wherein the oxide is deposited indirectly on a low-
k dielectric material. When viewed from this perspective, it is
particularly apparent that the appellants’ claim interpretation
is more narrow than not only the claim language but also the
specification disclosure and therefore involves the impermissible
practice of reading a limitation of the specification into the
claims.
Under these circumstances, it is appropriate that we hereby
sustain the examiner’s section 102 rejection of all appealed
claims as being anticipated by Xu.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007