Appeal No. 95-3462
Application No. 08/083,206
We now turn to the rejections grounded upon the combined
teachings of Goodman or Gordon with Bohg. Appellants do not
seriously take issue with the propriety of the combination of
references. Instead, appellants urge that application of the
collective teachings of the references, i.e. substitution of
amine for the ammonia reactant in Goodman or Gordon as
suggested by Bohg, would be expected to result in the
formation of a carbon-containing metal nitride rather than a
“substantially carbon-free” metal nitride. As noted by the
examiner, this argument is not persuasive since the appealed
claims, as presently constituted, do not preclude the
formation of a metal nitride which contains carbon.
Moreover, we cannot agree with the comment on page 6 of
appellants’ brief to the effect that the limitation
“substantially carbon-free” is somehow inherent in the claims.
We decline to read limitations into the claims which are not
explicitly recited therein. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404-1405, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). The term
“nitride,” as used in the claims, is apparently a generic term
which embraces carbonitrides as well as those that are
substantially carbon-free. Appellants have presented no
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007