Appeal 2007-1097
Application 10/230,593
1 D. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
2 The USPTO applies to the verbiage of a claim “the broadest
3 reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be
4 understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
5 enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
6 the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re
7 Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
8 “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
9 the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
10 art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631,
11 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
12 Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially
13 identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes,
14 the USPTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do
15 not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his invention. In
16 re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
17 “A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention,
18 the reference then disparages it.” Celeritas Tech. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l
19 Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
20 E. ANALYSIS
21 1. Claim construction
22 Claim 1 recites a method for patterning an organic bottom anti-
23 reflectant coating layer comprising the act of “using a dry etch plasma
24 process, the dry etch plasma process consisting of CO2 in combination with
25 only one of an inert gas, NH3, H2, Ar, N2 or He.” The phrase “consisting of”
26 does not define a compound but rather defines a step in the claimed method,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013