Appeal No. 2000-0239 Page 9
Application No. 08/839,843
USPQ 592, 599 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “That some experimentation is
necessary does not preclude enablement; the amount of
experimentation, however, must not be unduly extensive.” Id. at
1576, 224 USPQ at 413. “[T]he PTO bears an initial burden of
setting forth a reasonable explanation as to why it believes that
the scope of protection provided by that claim is not adequately
enabled by the description of the invention provided in the
specification of the application. . . .” In re Wright, 999 F.2d
1557, 1561-62, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing In re
Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223-24, 169 USPQ 367, 369-70 (CCPA
1971)).
Regarding a choice of materials, Biery explains that “[t]he
CVD tungsten, shown in FIG. 1, acts as the barrier material of
choice, but any material in which aluminum diffusivity is small
at processing temperatures, such as any of the refractory metals
mentioned above, could also be used advantageously.” Col. 5, ll.
16-21. The other refractory metals are listed “as molybdenum,
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007