Appeal No. 1997-0106
Application 07/792,482
that the step of removing the bared antihalation layer in step
(g) is not a consequence of an imaging step. See Brief, p. 8.
Appellants further argue that the specification describes this
limitation and in support thereof, rely on page 23, lines 6 to
19 of the specification, wherein it states:
For example, an acid-hardening photoresist used in
combination with a preferred antihalation
composition of the invention comprising a phenol-
based resin binder and an amine-based crosslinker as
described above, is readily stripped with a single
stripper solution after selective substrate
treatment. For removing such coating layers, a
preferred stripper solution contains about 90 weight
percent dimethylsulfoxide and 10 weight percent
para-toluenesulfonic acid. Preferably this
composition is used at about 70 to 90EC.
We agree with appellants that the portions of the
specification identified above reasonably establish written
description for the claim language at issue. See In re
Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52, 196 USPQ 465, 467 (CCPA 1978)
("To comply with the description requirement it is not
necessary that the application describe the claimed invention
in ipsis verbis . . .; all that is required is that it
reasonably convey to persons skilled in the art that, as of
the filing date thereof, the inventor had possession of the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007