Appeal 2006-2992
Application 10/073,710
the same as required by claim 1 on appeal, and has the
benefits of being economical to construct, reliable to use,
and produces excellent results (Answer 3-4).
Implicit in our review of the Examiner’s obviousness analysis is that
the claim must first have been correctly construed to define the scope and
meaning of each contested limitation. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d
1454, 1457, 1460 n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
During examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d
1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It is well-established
that before a conclusion of obviousness can be made based on a combination
of references, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to identify some
suggestion, reason, or motivation to lead an inventor to combine these
references. See In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1342, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1454
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, we must first construe the disputed terms “essentially
free from oxygen or nitrogen” and “essentially free from leaks of nitrogen or
oxygen” as found in clause (c) of claim 1 on appeal. According to
Appellants’ Specification (6:10-16), “preferably there is less than about 10
ppm of combined oxygen and nitrogen” in the chamber, and the chamber is
“made as leak-free as possible” to prevent oxygen or nitrogen from entering
the chamber. Appellants further teach that an “[u]ltra-low leak rate of
4mTorr/hr ensured neglible introduction of nitrogen from the atmosphere.”
Specification 24:18-19. However, we cannot limit the scope of these
disputed terms by the “preferred” embodiments absent an express disclaimer
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013