Appeal No. 1999-1286
Application No. 08/567,950
haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed
subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier
filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at
1966.
Claims 1 and 5 as originally filed read as follows:
1. A method for physically marking, on a silicon wafer, integrated
circuits deemed to be defective during a testing step so as to modify a
visual appearance of a surface of these circuits, wherein the marking is
done by exposure of the surface of the circuits to a laser radiation.
5. A method according to claim 1, wherein the laser radiation is
focused in such a way that a marking diameter is variable.
The combined claim thus reads:
A method for physically marking, on a silicon wafer, integrated circuits
deemed to be defective during a testing step so as to modify a visual
appearance of a surface of these circuits, wherein the marking is done by
exposure of the surface of the circuits to a laser radiation, wherein the
laser radiation is focused in such a way that a marking diameter is
variable.
This claim, while it may encompass variable focusing of the laser to create marks of
different sizes on the same defective integrated circuit, does not expressly describe
such a marking method. We therefore turn to the specification and drawings to
determine whether they provide a written description of the now-claimed method.
The specification at page 8, full paragraphs three through five, describe methods
of changing the size of the laser beam at the integrated circuit:
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007