Appeal No. 1997-3993 Page 6 Application No. 08/462,561 With this as background, we analyze the specific rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, made by the examiner of the claims on appeal. Specifically, the examiner stated (answer, p. 6) with respect to claim 10 that it is unclear whether the recitation "adapted for" is intended to express a mere statement of intended use, or whether it is intended to be a structural limitation. If it is intended to be a structural limitation, it is unclear what structure would meet such a limitation. The appellants responded to this rejection (reply brief, p. 2) by stating that "it is quite clear from the application considered as a whole that the recitation "adapted for" is intended to be a statement of intended use." The appellants assert (reply brief, p. 1) that the recitation "adapted for" is conventional and does not render the claims indefinite. Claim 10 recites an apparatus for ashing an organic film as part of a semiconductor device production process comprising, inter alia, an evacuatable plasma chamber adapted for conducting a plasma ashing procedure in a vacuum environment. In our view, it is quite clear that thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007