Appeal No. 1998-0096
Application No. 08/518,182
and "the cross section area of said single polymer body. . .is
smaller than that of each said substrate input/output pad; . .
." (claims 9 and 23).
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement is whether the originally filed
specification disclosure reasonably conveys to one of ordinary
skill in the art that applicant had possession of the subject
matter later claimed. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375,
217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In re Edwards, 568 F.2d
1349, 1351, 196 USPQ 465, 467 (CCPA 1978) ("The function of
the description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had
possession, as of the filing date of the application relied
on, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him").
Here, appellants have failed to comply with such a
requirement. The only portion of the specification (page 8)
disclosing the dimensions of the composite bumps is as
follows:
The input/output pads are formed of a metal such as
aluminum with a diameter of about 90 microns. Each
composite bump comprises a single polymer body 32
and a conductive metal coating 36 covering the
polymer body. . . . The polymer body has a thickness
of between about 5 and 25 microns.
41
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007