Appeal No. 1996-1141
Application 08/109,166
Our reviewing court in In re Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 565, 184 USPQ 484, 486
(CCPA 1975) indicates that the use of term “substantially” does not necessarily mean that
a claim violates 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Claims do not stand in a vacuum, Id.
citing In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Claims must
be read in light of the specification, Id. citing In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993, 169 USPQ 95,
98 (CCPA 1971).
The specification herein contains the following language:
Silane concentration has been measured at the exhaust port 13 under
a variety of conditions. In the cases where a flame is generated, no silane
could be detected in the exhaust stream 52 exiting exhaust port 13. At low
silane flows rates, for example, 50 ccm silane in 20 lpm nitrogen entering
chamber 10 through gas inlet 12 (i.e., 2,500 ppm silane incoming), the
average silane concentration measured at exhaust port 13 was in the range
of approximately 0-3 ppm and in no case exceeded 6 ppm. At theses low
concentrations, there is no risk of explosion and silane bubble formation
(i.e., silane self protection) does not occur. (Page 11, lines 4-13, emphasis
added).
We believe the claims, read in light of the specification, reasonably apprise those
of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the invention. The specification teaches how the
risk of explosion is reduced because the level of pyrophoric gas exiting the chamber is
minimal when compared to that entering the chamber. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection of claims 24-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007