Appeal 2006-3235
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,696
1 patent during this reexamination proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 1.552 (2006).9
2 We presume for purposes of this appeal that Claim 11 satisfies the
3 requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112.
4 II. APPELLANT’S INVENTION
5 Appellant invented a method of using a nematic liquid crystal to
6 detect a “hot spot” in an integrated circuit device. The various steps of the
7 method are recited in detail in allowed independent Claim 1, on which
8 allowed Claims 2-10 depend. Broadly speaking, these steps include
9 applying a thin film of a liquid crystal to the surface of an integrated circuit
10 die or wafer, illuminating the liquid crystal with polarized light, delivering a
11 current to the integrated circuitry on the die or wafer, using a heating system
12 to vary the temperature liquid crystal in the specific manner recited in the
13 claim, and detecting changes in the polarization angle that indicate that the
14 phase transition temperature of the liquid crystal has been exceeded in the
15 corresponding portion of the die or wafer. Dependent claim 9 specifies that
16 the liquid crystal comprises a nematic liquid crystal, or a cholesteric liquid
17 crystal, or a smectic liquid crystal. Claim 10, dependent on claim 9,
9 § 1.552. Scope of reexamination in ex parte reexamination
proceedings.
(a) Claims in an ex parte reexamination proceeding will
be examined on the basis of patents or printed publications and,
with respect to subject matter added or deleted in the
reexamination proceeding, on the basis of the requirements of
35 U.S.C. 112.
(b) Claims in an ex parte reexamination proceeding will
not be permitted to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.
(c) Issues other than those indicated in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section will not be resolved in a
reexamination proceeding. . . .
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013