Appeal No. 2003-0016 Page 5
Application No. 09/400,613
The appellants only argument (brief, p. 9) that the above-noted rejection is in
error is that "the stencil of Figure 1 may be utilized to form the annular contacts claimed
by Applicants. Therefore, the stencil may be utilized in a method of forming a deposit in
making semiconductor devices as recited in Applicant's claims 27-29."
In our view, claim 27 does not comply with the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 for the reasons set forth by the examiner. While the stencil made by the forming
and maintaining steps of claim 27 may be utilized in a method of forming a deposit in
making semiconductor devices, claim 27 does not recite any step of utilizing the formed
stencil to form a deposit. Without such a step, it is unclear to us what the metes and
bounds of claim 27 is with the degree of precision and particularity that is required. In
that regard, it is unclear to us if claim 27 would be met by any stencil (even a stencil not
used in forming a deposit in making semiconductor devices) prepared by forming at
least one annular opening in a stencil creating an inner member inward of the opening
and an outer member outward of the opening and maintaining a physical connection
between the inner and outer members. Given this uncertainty, claim 27 is indefinite.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 27,
and claims 28 and 29 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007