Appeal No. 1997-0106
Application 07/792,482
We agree. Furthermore, appellants' interpretation of the
claim language at issue is consistent with the specification.
See Specification, p. 23, lines 6-19.
The examiner further argues that "[i]t is not clear what
is meant by 'altering the underlying substrate' in claims 36,
56,
and 66." Answer, p. 7. However, the specification explains
the phrase "altering the underlying substrate" as follows (see
Brief, p. 13):
[Subsequent to the photolithographic process of
the invention, t]he developed substrate may then be
selectively processed on those substrates areas
bared of photoresist, for example chemically etching
or plating substrate areas bared of photoresist in
accordance with procedures well known in the art.
[Specification, p. 22, lines 26-31].
Reading the claim language at issue in light of the
specification, one having ordinary skill in the art would have
understood "altering the underlying substrate" to mean
effecting a change to that portion of the substrate bared of
photoresist. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162
USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (claims cannot be read in a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007