Appeal No. 1998-2342 Page 3
Application No. 08/505,739
must 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). While it would be
unreasonable to ignore any interpretive guidance afforded by the specification, see In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997), it is improper to read limitations
from the specification into the claims. Id. See also In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d
1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000). With this in mind we turn to claim 1.
Claim 1 is directed to a sputter deposition method of coating substrates. The claim is in Jepson
format and involves an improvement to a known process of sputter coating using a relatively thick
sputtering target whose sputtering surface substantially erodes over its life. The improvement involves
“maintaining sputtered film thickness uniformity across the surface of the substrates, from substrate to
substrate.” The claim recites one method step and that step is directed to changing the spacing
between the target and substrate “so as to maintain film thickness uniformity across the surfaces of the
substrates.”
With regard to “maintaining ... uniformity across the surfaces”, the claim does not require a
perfectly even coating on each substrate. We note that the specification indicates that there is some
deviation in thickness uniformity with the use of the process. See Figure 7. The specification does not
state how much deviation is encompassed by the claim language “maintaining ... uniformity.” However,
the specification indicates that, in semiconductor
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007