Appeal No. 1998-1663
Application No. 08/508,408
this term in its broadest context to actually include titanium oxide
layers deposited in a “slightly oxidizing atmosphere” as described
in Finley or about 28% reactive gas as described in Khanna.
The appellants have proposed amending appealed claim 9 to
positively recite that the deposited film is a “titanium metal
film” and that the sputtering and oxidizing steps are separately
conducted, in the event that we agree appealed claim 9 “inherently
recites” these limitations. (Request, page 3.) However, 37 CFR §
1.197(b) does not provide for such a proposal to amend appealed claim
9 at this stage. Therefore, it is not appropriate. Further, we do
not agree with the appellants that the limitations are “inherently”
recited in appealed claim 9. Quite oppositely, we find that the
appellants’ conditional proposal to amend further supports our
determination that appealed claim 9 is significantly broader in scope
than that argued by the appellants.
In summary, we have reconsidered our decision in light of all
of the arguments made in the appellants’ request. However, we see no
compelling reason justifying a different result. Accordingly, we
decline to modify our original decision.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007