Appeal 2007-2483
Application 09/899,183
Claim construction
The Board must construe pending a claim as broadly as its terms
reasonably allow.5 The applicant, as drafter of the claim, has the obligation
to ensure that the claim has the intended scope, particularly when facing an
alternate construction from the examiner.6 We focus on contested
limitations.7
nozzle
The examiner construes "nozzle" to include housing and mounting
structures associated with the spraying end.8 Mitsubishi describes this
construction as "unreasonable",9 but provides no specific definition of its
own. In particular, Mitsubishi has not pointed to intrinsic evidence or
provided extrinsic evidence that would require a construction of "nozzle"
limited to the conical end of the nozzle assembly. From claim 15 itself, we
know the nozzle is "a spray nozzle having a first end located to spray a CVD
source material into the chamber through the inlet". The claim further
5 In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
(rejecting a narrow construction); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858-59,
225 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc).
6 In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re Queener, 796 F.2d 461, 464, 230 USPQ 438, 440 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (Newman, AJ, concurring).
7 Aero Prods. Int'l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 466 F.3d 1000, 1012 n.6,
80 USPQ2d 1481, 1488 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (appropriate to focus
construction on disputed limitations), citing Scripps Clinic & Research
Found v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1580, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1013
(Fed. Cir. 1991).
8 Examiner's Answer (Ans.) 3 and 5.
9 Br. 4.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013