Appeal No. 2001-2461
Application No. 08/855,059
the subject matter claimed. Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Atlantic
Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 997, 54 USPQ2d 1227, 1232, 1233
(Fed. Cir. 2000).
Here, the originally filed specification states: “The
copper deposition method used for application of the thin,
continuous, wetting layer of copper in the two step process may
be one of the sputtered copper techniques listed above or may be
chemical vapor deposition (CVD) copper...” (Page 6, lines 1-
18.) In addition, the originally filed specification describes
the use of wetting layers other than a copper wetting layer.
(Page 11, line 26 to page 12, line 1.) That is, the wetting
layer may be, but does not have to be, CVD copper. Accordingly,
we find nothing wrong in the appellants’ amendment excluding the
disclosed wetting layer species of CVD copper from the disclosed
genus of wetting layer.
However, the exclusion of CVD copper barrier layer from the
disclosed genus of barrier layer stands on different footing.
While the originally filed specification describes the chemical
vapor deposition of the barrier layer (page 13, lines 5-9), it
does not contain any description of the use of copper as the
barrier layer material. Under these circumstances, we hold that
the amendment excluding CVD copper as the barrier layer
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007