Ex Parte TENCH et al - Page 6




                Appeal No. 2002-0730                                                                                        6                  
                Application No. 09/410,250                                                                                                     


                claim 1.  The principal issue before is whether the aforesaid limitation distinguishes the                                     
                claimed electrolytic solution over the prior art admittedly directed to an electrolytic                                        
                solution having the same composition.                                                                                          
                It is well settled that, A[i]f, however, the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets                                    
                forth the complete invention, including all of its limitations, and the preamble offers no                                     
                distinct definition of any of the claimed invention=s limitations, but rather merely states, for                               
                example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is of no                                              
                significance to claim construction because it cannot be said to constitute or explain a claim                                  
                limitation.@  See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305,                                              
                51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165-66  (Fed. Cir. 1999).  See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473,                                               
                478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a                                                        
                structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a                                        

                purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation").  We                                       
                conclude that the preamble to claim 1, Afor electroplating copper circuitry in trenches and                                    
                vias in dielectric material on semiconductor chips,@ falls within the specific area wherein the                                
                preamble states a purpose or intended use of the invention.  Accordingly, It cannot be                                         
                construed as constituting or explaining  a claim limitation.                                                                   
                Neither are we convinced by appellants= argument that, Athe existing literature                                                
                clearly teaches away from the use of a bath such as that described in Morrissey for chip                                       







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007