Appeal No. 2005-1668
Application 09/920,891
by Orczyk et al. (Orczyk), Kholodenko et al. (Kholodenko) and Sherstinsky et al. (Sherstinsky)
(supplemental answer, pages 4-6).2,3
Our consideration of the ground of rejection requires that we initially interpret
representative appealed independent claim 17 by giving the terms thereof the broadest
reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, as
interpreted by this person, unless another meaning is intended by appellants as established in the
written description of the specification, and without reading into the claims any limitation or
particular embodiment disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The plain language of claim 17 specifies a computer-
readable storage medium having a computer-readable program embodied therein for directing
operation of a substrate processing system in accordance with the steps, among others, of “(b)”
generating a first high-density plasma in the process chamber to deposit a first portion of the film
on the substrate by HDP-CVD, “(c) thereafter, cooling the substrate,” “(d) thereafter, flowing an
etchant gas into the process chamber,” “(e) thereafter, providing a second gaseous mixture to the
process chamber,” and “(f)” generating a second high-density plasma in the process chamber for
a second HDP-CVD step. Similar claim language appears in appealed independent claim 20.
The issues in this appeal involve the interpretation of claim term “thereafter.” We
determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the written description in the
specification that this term is used in its ordinary, dictionary meaning in context of “[f]rom a
specific time onward; from then on.”4 Thus, the computer-readable program must include a
separate substrate cooling step after completion of the first HDP-CVD step; a separate etching
2 Appealed claims 17 through 22 are all of the claims in the application. See the appendix to the
brief.
3 The examiner includes Wang et al. in the listing of Prior Art of Record (supplemental answer,
page 3) but does not mention the patent in the remainder of the supplemental answer.
4 See, e.g., The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition 1261 (Boston, Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1982); Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary 1200 (Boston,
Houghton Mifflin Company. 1988).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007