Appeal No. 2003-1501
Application 09/756,929
encapsulated object (page 12, lines 9-12; emphasis supplied). However, it further states in this
respect, that “the reaction chamber 58 may house a plurality of magazines 50” (id., lines 16-19;
emphasis supplied). The term “house” is further used in the written description in connection
with a “reaction chamber:” “[i]n a preferred embodiment, a plasma cleaner is provided with a
reaction chamber used to house the devices during a deflashing procedure” (page 6, lines 2-5;
emphasis supplied); and, “[t]he plasma chamber includes a process chamber 44 (also referred to
as a ‘reaction chamber’) used to temporarily house one or more semiconductor packages,
represented in Fig. 4 as lead frame 10 and casing 30, during the deflashing procedure” (page 9,
lines 13-17; emphasis supplied). It is apparent that in disclosure accompanying these passages, a
plasma gas source is “coupled” to the reaction chamber or “enclosure” as specified in appealed
claim 43 (e.g., page 6, lines 5-7, and page 9, lines 17-20).
We further find that while the claim language “an enclosure for housing an encapsulated
object” does not limit the manner in which the encapsulated object is housed in the enclosure, the
language in the preamble and the last clause of appealed claim 43 specify that at least one
component surface of the encapsulated object is subjected to the plasma gas such that any
contaminants contained thereon are removed. Thus, the “enclosure” of the claimed apparatus
must be capable of housing an encapsulated object in such manner that at least one component
surface of the encapsulated object is exposed to the plasma gas. We find here that on this record,
the preambular language does not otherwise limit the claimed apparatus. See In re Stencel,
828 F.2d 751, 754-55, 4 USPQ2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1987), and cases cited therein (“Whether
a [statement] . . . of intended purpose constitutes a limitation to the claims is, as has long been
established, a matter to be determined on the facts of each case in view of the claimed invention
as a whole.”).
Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language involving “an
enclosure” in light of the specification, encompasses within its scope a reaction chamber which
houses an encapsulated object in any manner such that at least one of its surfaces is exposed to
plasma gas from a source coupled to the enclosure.2
2 We note here with respect to several of the examiner’s arguments regarding alleged process
language and intended use language in the appealed claims (answer, e.g., pages 5 and 7-8), that it
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007