Ex parte TOSIHIRO FUSAYASU et al. - Page 12




          Appeal No. 96-2821                                                          
          Application 08/015,007                                                      
               As described above, it is necessary to use the Cu/Mo/Cu                
               clad material of the thickness ratio from 1:3:1 to                     
               1:5:1 so as to prevent the inadequate leak of the                      
               glass 13, and therefore the thermal expansion                          
               coefficient should be in the range of 6.0-                             
               6.8(× 10 / C).-6 N                                                           
          (Paper 1 at 9, emphasis added.)                                             
               6.   Applicants have an obligation to claim their invention            
          precisely.  Morris, 43 USPQ2d at 1759.  If the Cu/Mo/Cu thickness           
          ratio is necessary, as the disclosure states with support from              
          Figure 8, then it is also a necessary limitation in the claim;              
          otherwise, the claim would encompass packages (e.g., with a                 
          Cu/Mo/Cu thickness ration of 1:1:1) that Applicants have                    
          identified as inadequate.  We cannot cure this defect by reading            
          the claim as limited to the disclosed subject matter.  Therefore,           
          we must reject claim 5 under section 112 for failing to claim the           
          invention precisely.                                                        
                                      DECISION                                        
               We reverse the rejection of claim 5 under section 103                  
          because record lacks a preponderance of evidence to support a               
          conclusion that the adhesive thickness limitation would have been           
          obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.                       
               We enter a new ground of rejection under section 112 because           
          the claim fails to recite a limitation that Applicants have                 
          identified as a necessary part of the invention.                            


                                       - xii -                                        





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007