Appeal No. 96-0384 Page 5
Application No. 08/106,252
Appellants urge that the claims herein are directed to
controlling metal vacancies in the substrate by diffusing
mercury out of the substrate whereas Jack is concerned with
diffusing impurities into the substrate from the capping layer
(brief, page 3). In our view, however, the claims on appeal
are not so limited
as to support appellants' viewpoint.
In this regard, we are in agreement with the examiner
(answer, page 6) that representative claim 1 simply does not
require diffusing mercury out of the substrate. It is well
settled that the claims in a patent application are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation during
prosecution of a patent application. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Limitations
in the specification are not read into a claim to narrow the
scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations
having no express basis in the claim. See In re Prater, 415
F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
Moreover, when a claim does not recite allegedly
distinguishable features, “appellant[s] cannot rely on them to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007