Appeal No. 1998-0038
Application No. 08/236,780
the objective defined by the appellants in appealed dependent
claim 4.
In addition to the foregoing, we point out that
Champetier's method would necessarily and inherently effect
the here-claimed sputtering step. This is because patentee
uses an energy range which falls completely within the here-
claimed range and because patentee expressly teaches applying
his method to cryogenically cooled substrates (i.e., the
aforementioned cryogenic cooling systems) as recited in the
appealed claims. In these respects, we observe that the
appellants expressly disclose on lines 20-27 of specification
page 3 that the relatively low ionic energy under
consideration effects sputtering in a cryogenic temperature
regime. Thus, under the foregoing circumstances, it is
reasonable to consider that Champetier's method, like the
corresponding method defined by appealed independent claim 1,
would necessarily and inherently effect the here-claimed
sputtering step. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195
USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Also see In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1326-27, 231 USPQ 136, 138-39 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and the
cases cited therein.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007