Appeal No. 2001-1550
Application 09/105,830
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the
claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In addition, claims are to be interpreted
as the terms reasonably allow. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321,
13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claim 1 recites “[a] capacitor, including: (a) a bottom
electrode having a conductive adhesion-promoting layer at a first
surface.” Claim 11 recites “[a] capacitor, comprising: (a) a
bottom electrode having a conductive adhesion-promoting layer
made of Ti-Al-N and at a first surface.” Claim 17 recites “[a]n
electrode structure for a capacitor, comprising: . . . (b) a
bottom electrode comprising a conductive adhesion-promoting
portion and an oxidation-resistant portion, said adhesion-
promoting portion made of Ti-Al-N and contacting said oxidation
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007