Appeal No. 1997-2859
Application 08/340,676
explicitly calls for a protective layer ‘directly bonded’ to a
substrate without adhesive therebetween ‘using direct
bonding.’” [id. 4]. Appellants further argue [id. 6] that
“[i]n contrast, [in Hilton], epitaxial growth includes an atom
by atom build up of the layer on the substrate.” The Examiner
responds [answer, page 4] that “[w]hile Hilton, Sr. doesn’t
provide the same process as the [A]ppellants for bonding, the
final product is structurally the same, a protective layer
directly on a substrate, using the same materials set forth by
the [A]ppellants, without an intermediate layer.” Appellants
further argue [reply brief, page
2] that “Hilton, Sr. does not teach a bonded structure.”
We agree with the Examiners interpretation of the claimed
feature “directly bonded”. During the prosecution of a patent
application, an Examiner is required to give a claim the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the Examiner is taking
into consideration the process limitation to the extent called
for by claim 23, but is not reading into the claim all the
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007