Appeal No. 1998-0078
Application No. 08/478,814
The specification clearly discloses the etching equipment is capable of processing an
object within the post processing apparatus. The specification also discloses the functional
relationship between the first and second gas supply means within the post processing
apparatus. (Specification, page 5, line 14 to page 6, line 6). The Examiner has not
presented any reasoning or evidence why the description of the intended processing of an
object and the functional relationship between the first and second gas supply means
renders the claim confusing and why one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised
of the scope of a claim that contains this description. Therefore the examiner has not met
the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph is reversed.
The prior art rejections
The initial inquiry into determining the propriety of the examiner’s prior art
rejections is to correctly construe the scope and meaning of the claimed subject matter.
Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In
re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Generally, we
give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the terms in claims consistent with
Appellant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007