Appeal No. 2003-1501
Application 09/756,929
The examiner finds that Rigali meets the limitations of, inter alia, appealed claim 43,
because it shows, inter alia, “an enclosure chamber 16” and a “gas source 30,” and that “the
apparatus of Rigali comprises an enclosure capable of housing an encapsulated object” (answer,
pages 5 and 8). We find that Rigali discloses to one skilled in the art in the first embodiment, the
plasma treatment apparatus 10 in Figs. 1 and 3 which includes as one major component,
“reaction chamber assembly 12 comprised of an outer shell or housing 18 which contains a
reaction chamber shell 20” that along with door 22, provide reaction chamber 16 (col. 6, lines 26-
48). Rigali further discloses “gas source 30 from which suitable processing gas may be injected
into reaction chamber 16” (col. 6, lines 58-60; see also col. 10, lines 61-67), and one skilled in
the art would have recognized from Fig. 1 that conduit 30’ couples gas source 30 with plasma
treatment apparatus 10 and thus with reaction chamber 16 (col. 6, lines 58-60, and col. 10, lines
61-67). As seen in Rigali Fig. 3, the workpieces 100 are exposed to plasma gas in processing
gap 140 between magazines 92 and 94 in reaction chamber 16 (e.g., col. 8, lines 36-56, col.
10, lines 29-38 and col. 11, lines 1-26).
We find that Rigali discloses “workpieces 100, e.g., leadframes” (col. 10, lines 37-38;
emphasis supplied), but other than thus citing “leadframes” as an example, merely refers to
“workpiece magazines 92 and 94” and to “workpieces 100” (e.g., col. 8, line 37) in disclosing the
first embodiment. With respect to workpiece magazines 92 and 94, Rigali describes the same as
“standard workpiece magazines . . . very widely used and well known in the integrated circuit
industry” (col. 8, lines 11-15). Indeed, Rigali generically describes the workpieces and
magazines therefor used in the apparatus (cols. 2-4). In this respect, Rigali describes plasma
treatment apparatus 10 in the first embodiment as containing many parts and subsystems that “are
substantially identical to the corresponding parts and subsystems of the PX series Plasma
is well settled that “[t]here is nothing intrinsically wrong in defining something by what it does
rather than by what it is.” See generally, In re Echerd, 471 F.2d 632, 634-35, 176 USPQ 321,
322 (CCPA 1973); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64, 169 USPQ 563, 565-67 (CCPA 1971);
In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971). In this respect, it
is appropriate to determine whether the functional, “what it does” claim language confers a
structural limitation, as in Echerd, Ludtke and Swinehart, or conveys a method or intended use
concept. See, e.g., In re Yanish, 477 F.2d 958, 959, 177 USPQ 705, 706 (CCPA 1973); In re
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007