Appeal No. 1998-2308
Application No. 08/379,868
into account the written description found in the specification. In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). However, the interpretation of
the claim language must be “reasonable in light of the totality of
the written description.” In re Baker Hughes Inc., 215 F.3d 1297,
1303, 55 USPQ2d 1149, 1153 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In our view, the examiner’s reading of the appealed claims is
not consistent with the description found in the specification, which
is directed solely to processes that use a chamber having only one
atmosphere and having spaced-apart sputtering and oxidizing stations.
(Specification, page 1, lines 4-9; Fig. 1.)
Under these circumstances, we determine that the combination of
Kügler and Scobey does not result in the invention recited in the
appealed claims. Since Latz does not cure the fundamental
deficiencies of Kügler and Scobey, we hold that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness against the subject
matter of the appealed claims within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection IV
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007