Appeal No. 2000-0160
Application 08/595,150
356, 358 (CCPA 1976) (claims which failed to recite the use of a
cooling zone, specially located, which the specification taught
as essential, was not supported by enabling disclosure);
In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 959, 189 USPQ 149, 152 (CCPA 1976)
(since all of the essential parts of the "kit" are recited in the
claims, there is no basis for holding the claims incomplete); and
In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 1005, 158 USPQ 266, 268 (CCPA 1968)
(claim failed to interrelate essential elements and failed to
distinctly claim what appellant in his brief insisted was his
invention). See also Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 48 USPQ2d 1274,
1277 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (omitted elements test), rev'd, remanded on
other grounds 214 F.3d 1342, 54 USPQ2d 1915 (Fed. Cir. 2000); and
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure §§ 2172, 2172.01.
Claims 19-21, 24, 26, 28, 30, and 34 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to recite an
essential element and, therefore, as based on a lack of enabling
disclosure. Claims 19 and 24 do not recite the electrically
conducting coating 34 which is chemically inert with respect to
reactants and reaction products of the Blanket Tungsten CVD via
fill process. This layer is essential because otherwise the top
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007