Appeal No. 1996-2086
Application 08/255,588
gettering material above its melting point in order to condense droplets of the gettering
material on the substrate. This is then followed by the cooling of the substrate to solidify
the droplets and the removal of the gettering material (claim 10).
I.
According to the examiner, claims 1 and 8 are anticipated by Fuller’s teachings
to place solid gettering material ie [sic, i.e.] metal (see col. 2 lines [sic, line] 65[)] on
a semiconductor substrate, heating to fuse the material and simultaneously getter
impurities from the substrate, see col. 7, line 25[,] where the metal was fused ie [sic,
i.e.] melted, and then removed from the substrate. As to claim 8, the temperature is
inclusive of the melting point of the gettering layer [Answer, p. 3].
We find the examiner’s position untenable.
It is well established that anticipation requires that a prior art reference disclose
every limitation of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently. Mehl/Biophile Int'l.
Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365, 52 USPQ2d 1303, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); RCA Corp.
v. Applied Digital Data Sys., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1984); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark, Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984). However, inherency “may not be
established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain
thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re Oelrich,
666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981). Thus, in order for a claim
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007