Appeal No. 1998-0908
Application No. 08/506,292
application are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and that claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would
be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed,
710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d
1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993), citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We find no language
in the appealed claims which limit them to “testing”, rather,
Appellants instead have used the terminology “stimulating a
product wafer” and “providing the stimulus wafer”. In our view,
the conductive pads 16 on the interconnecting plate 15 in
King '405, which are registered with conductive pads 12 on the
die 10 and are interconnected by conductive traces 17 to each
other and to I/O connections, clearly serve to “stimulate” the
die conductive pads (King '405, column 4, lines 16-35). We would
further point out that Appellants’ specification (page 5, line
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007