Appeal No. 1998-1623
Application 08/433,625
In the reply brief, Appellants argue that Brady does not
specifically define what is meant by the combination of tin,
lead and indium. Appellants asked the question "Is it one or
more layers or is it an alloy?"
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is
the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and limitations appearing in the specification
are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
We note that Appellants' claim 20 recites that the solder
region has a composition which includes at least a first
component and a second component. We fail to find that
Appellants' claim 20 precludes the solder region having layers
or being an alloy. Therefore, we find that the Brady teaching
of a combination of tin, lead and indium whether it is layers
or whether it is an alloy meets Appellants' claim limitations
as
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007