Appeal No. 1998-0178
Application No. 08/254,854
We consider first the rejection of claims 24 and 26-30
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The examiner’s
rejection states the following:
Claim 24 is indefinite in that it
first recites that the via structure
includes a “titanium-aluminum
compound”, and then recites that it
“does not include titanium”. The
compound must include titanium,
therefore line 11 contradicts that
which has been claimed [final
rejection, page 2].
In responding to appellants’ arguments with respect to this
rejection, the examiner stated:
The phrase “the via structure does not
include a layer of elemental titanium”
tends to define the invention in terms
of what it is not, rather than
pointing out the invention. This is a
negative limitation that renders the
claim indefinite [answer, page 4].
Appellants argue that elemental titanium means
unreacted titanium, and there is no conflict between the
claimed presence of a titanium-aluminum compound and the lack
of elemental titanium [brief, page 4]. Appellants also argue
that negative limitations are not per se indefinite or
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007