Appeal No. 96-2821
Application 08/015,007
semiconductor package constructed as claimed. Fact finding 22,
supra. We therefore will not sustain the rejection of claim 5
under section 103.
C. New ground of rejection: claim 5 is
based on an insufficient disclosure
4. We must give claims their broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification. In re Morris,
43 USPQ2d 1753, 1758 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We may not, however, read
limitations into the claims from the specification. In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
5. If a claimed range includes substantially inoperative
values, then the claim is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1501, 226 USPQ 1005, 1009
(Fed. Cir. 1985). Claim 5 sets no limitation on the thickness
ratio of the Cu/Mo/Cu clad layers, yet the disclosure states that
a specific range is necessary:
When the thickness ratio is 1:1:1, almost all of
the packages are inadequate in leak. However, when the
thickness ratio is 1:3:1-1:5:1, leak never occurs. The
reason for this is supposed to be that, as shown in
Fig. 8, the thermal stress to the glass is restricted
to not larger than 2kg/mm when the thickness ratio is2
from 1:3:1 to 1:5:1, thereby preventing the glass 13
from leak.
(Paper 1 at 8, emphasis added; Fig. 8) On the next page,
Applicants state:
- xi -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007