Appeal No. 1998-2342 Page 7
Application No. 08/505,739
required by claim 1 (Brief, page 8, lines 9-10). What Appellants point out is that Tepman does not
expressly describe maintaining uniformity across the surface of
the wafer substrate. However, Tepman’s failure to mention maintenance of uniformity across the
surface as a goal does not necessary mean there is no anticipation.
A prior art reference may anticipate when a claim limitation not expressly found in that
reference is nonetheless inherent in it. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51
USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). While Tepman is silent as to the amount of thickness non-
uniformity which occurs, it is reasonable to believe that a deviation of less than +/- 5 percent is
inherently maintained. We particularly note that Tepman is directed to semiconductor wafer
processing. Appellants indicate that uniformity deviations of less than +/- 5 percent were demanded in
semiconductor wafer sputtering (specification, page 2). A small deviation on the order of +/- 5 percent
is all the claim requires. See the discussion on claim interpretation above.
The reasonableness of the assertion of inherency is supported by Appellants’ specification as
well. Note that it is permissible to look to appellant’s specification to establish the inherent properties
of what is taught in the prior art. C.f. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). Appellants’ specification indicates that when the target-to-substrate distance is held
constant in a similar process, a deviation of +/- 6.2 percent results after 1500 kWH of usage (Figure 4,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007