Appeal No. 2002-2083
Application No. 09/430,642
a ‘heavy presumption’ that they mean what they say and have the ordinary meaning
that would be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the relevant art." Texas
Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817
(Fed. Cir. 2002) cert. denied, 123 S.Ct. 2230 (2003). We find that the support
substrate merely is required to add support to that which it is connected to, rather than
requiring that the other layers are formed upon the support substrate during
manufacture. We find that a “substrate” is “an underlying layer.” (The American
Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by
Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation.) Here,
we find that the metal (gold) material in Piloto would provide some albeit minimal
support and would broadly be an underlying layer in the final product.
Appellants argue that the gold layer in Piloto does not prevent shrinkage in any
direction of the green tape. (See brief at page 7.) While we agree with appellants that
Piloto does not achieve this desired result, we find no limitation, expressed or implied,
in the instant claimed invention to support this argument. Therefore, this argument is
not persuasive. Additionally, we find no discussion in appellants’ specification that the
metal support substrate solves the shrinkage problem, but we do find that the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007