Appeal No. 1996-0200
Application 08/119,444
meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in that, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s
specification. [emphasis added] In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
During prosecution of the application, the examiner gave the term “susceptor” no
weight alleging that the term “does not specifically give ‘life and breath’ to the claim to
distinguish one aluminum substrate from another.” Answer, page 19. On the other hand,
appellants urge that the term “susceptor” has a specific meaning as defined in their
specification. We agree with the appellants.
In our view, the term “susceptor” contributes to the definition of the claimed
invention. Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications,
55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d 1816, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Appellants state:
In the formation of integrated circuit structures, certain processes
such as plasma-assisted chemical vapor deposition processes are carried
out in a vacuum chamber of a reactor wherein the wafer is mounted on a
platform referred to as a susceptor which usually serves not only as a
support for the wafer, but also as one of the electrodes for generation of the
plasma. Specification page 1.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007