Appeal No. 1998-1578
Application No. 08/543,827
lines 13-14; appealed claims 6 and 15) Thus, it is clear that
the line defined by the points (700EC, 1000 D) and (800EC,
3000 D) is being used in appealed claims 1 and 14 to limit the
maximum annealing temperature as a function of thickness, not
to define any minimum annealing temperature.
It is true that the specification describes a “base
barrier anneal temperature” that “varies from about 700EC for
an effective barrier thickness of about 1000 D to about 800EC
for an effective barrier thickness of about 3000 D.” (Page
14, lines 12-17.) However, this feature is described as a
preferred embodiment and is not recited in appealed claims 1
and 14. In this regard, a claim is not limited to a preferred
embodiment described in the specification, especially where
the language found in the claim is clear. Comark
Communication, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-87,
48 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
We now turn to the teachings of the applied prior art
references. To avoid repetition, we refer to our discussion
above concerning the teachings of Larson.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007