Appeal No. 1996-3534
Application 08/323,410
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bernhardt. We reverse.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) (1997), we enter a new ground of rejection of
claims 1 through 17, inclusive of claims 8 through 14 indicated to be allowable by the examiner, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Bernhardt and Ipri.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants, we
refer to the examiner’s answer and to appellants’ principal and reply briefs for a complete exposition
thereof.
Opinion
We begin our consideration of the issues in this appeal by determining the invention
encompassed by the appealed claims and the other claims of record as they stand before us, which
claims include means-plus-function language, mindful that we must give the broadest reasonable
interpretation to the terms of the appealed claims consistent with appellants’ specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d
1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 1989). We find that claim 1 is drawn in “Jepson” format to the specified improvement “[i]n a
process for forming a seed layer for selective metal deposition.” See generally In re Ehrreich, 590
F.2d 902, 904, 200 USPQ 504, 510 (CCPA 1979). Consequently, it is elementary claim construction
that the claimed process of claim 1 requires the formation of a seed layer, wherein “insulating fillets”
are formed “along the perimeter regions of the seed layer between the seed layer and an underlying
layer,” as seen from the plain language of the claim in a manner consistent with the construction that one
of ordinary skill in this art would have given the terms of the claim in light of appellants’ specification
(e.g., page 2, lines 19-21).
We further find that claim 7 is also drawn in “Jepson” format to the specified improvement “[i]n
a process for selective metal deposition using laser writing to form activated seed layers for
electroplating of a conductive material thereon.” Thus, we find that the claimed process of claim 7
requires the formation of activated seed layers using laser writing for electroplating thereon of a
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007