Appeal No. 95-0638
Application 08/011,094
translates to 7.9 mils. Each of these values is outside the
claimed range. Appellants argue that since none of the applied
prior art teaches the thickness of the copper layers as recited
in the claims, there is no prima facie showing of obviousness by
the examiner.
The examiner argues that the claims do not recite the
usefulness of the thickness of the copper layers. It is not the
function of the claims to describe the useful properties of the
device. The specification in this application properly describes
the advantages of using copper layers of the claimed thickness.
It is enough that the claims on appeal clearly recite a
structural limitation of the thickness of the copper layers. The
examiner cannot ignore clear structural limitations in a claim,
and it is improper to look to the claim for a recitation of the
advantages of a structural limitation.
The examiner also argues that the superior properties of
the claimed invention which are argued by appellants are not
properly incorporated into the claims. However, the superior
properties result from the selection of specific values of
thickness for the copper layers. These specific values of
thickness are in the range of 0.5 to 7 mils and this range is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007