Appeal No. 2003-0799 Page 6
Application No. 09/567,818
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claims 1, 4 and 5 which has
not been sufficiently rebutted by Appellants.
Claim 3
In regard to claim 3, we make the following new ground of rejection: Claim 3 is rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
According to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, “[t]he specification shall conclude with one or more
claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant
regards as his invention.” To meet the requirements of this portion of §112, it must be clear,
from a reading of the specification that (1) the invention set forth in the claim is what “the
applicant regards as his invention” and (2) the bounds of the claim can be understood by those of
ordinary skill in the art. Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1348, 63
USPQ2d 1769, 1775 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Claim 3 is directed to a flexible microelectronic device including, in addition to silicon
islands, a “lower polyimide layer”, an “upper polyimide layer” and “another polyimide layer.”
Claim 3 also requires the inclusion of “at least one aluminum patch.”
Looking to the specification to determine how the device is described therein, we note
that the specification does not use the terminology “lower”, “upper” or “another” to describe the
various polyimide layers. Nor is any aluminum element described as a “patch.” Instead, the
specification describes a device with “first polyimide layer 210,” “second polyimide layer 214,”
and “third polyimide layer 224.” (specification, p. 7). There are two aluminum layers: a “first
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007