Appeal No. 2002-2080
Application 09/358,484
[aluminum nitride] substrate prior to glass layer formation enhances the ability of the glass layer
to adhere to the substrate,” which is a preferred embodiment of appellants and
Toyoda (id., italicized emphasis in the original). In this respect, the examiner states that “[t]he
presence of [appellants’] claim 26 and the supporting disclosure in the [appellants’] specification
prove this argument to be false” (id., pages 6-7).
We observe that cancelled claim 265 specifies “a surface of said sintered article . . . of
aluminum nitride is oxidized before said sintered article . . . is coated with said paste of oxide
glass,” and, in not specifying any conditions is broader in scope than cancelled claim 33. In the
reply brief, appellants do not challenge the examiner’s argument with respect to the disclosure in
the specification and cancelled claim 26. For completeness with respect to our discussion here,
and in view of the examiner’s position, we find that Kondo teaches the formation of an oxide
layer on the surface of the aluminum nitride substrate, which then becomes the oxide surface
layer of the aluminum nitride substrate; that the patterned electroconductive oxide glass
containing layer is formed on a portion of the oxide surface layer; and that, as pointed out by the
examiner, the portions of the oxide surface layer not covered by the application of the insulative
oxide glass layer are “a surface” on which the paste of oxide glass would be directly applied.
Appellants base their contentions with respect to the interpretation of the claim language
on the language of the claim, making no reference to any disclosure in the written description of
their specification. The difficulty that we have with appellants’ position is that the plain
language of the appealed claims does not specify the limitations embodied in appellants’
expressed intentions with respect to the scope of the appealed claims, and such intentions do not
limit the scope of the claims. In re Cormany, 476 F.2d 998, 1000-02, 177 USPQ 450, 451-53
(CCPA 1973).
The examiner does make reference to the written disclosure in the specification, but does
not point to any particular disclosure to support his view of the appealed claims.
Accordingly, in order to consider the issues with respect to the application of prior art to
appealed claims 1, 24, 32, 34 and 35, we must give the claim terms “a sintered article of
aluminum nitride” and “a surface of said sintered article,” the broadest reasonable interpretation
5 See above p. 1. A copy of cancelled claim 26 appears in the appendix to the brief.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007