Appeal No. 2004-0621
Application No. 09/193,193
limitations of claim 8 on appeal have been disclosed by Grill
(Answer, page 6). We disagree.
The examiner must apply to the language of the claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art,
taking into account any enlightenment by way of definition or
otherwise found in the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we
agree with the examiner’s analysis that the “insulator” recited in
claim 8 on appeal may be construed as the dielectric line 4 of
Grill (see appellants’ specification, page 3, ll. 16-17).
Similarly, we determine that the term “physically detached” as
recited in claim 8 on appeal should be construed as meaning that
“physical contact between the conductive layers ... and the barrier
layers ... is broken,” thus allowing the conductive layers to be
lifted off (specification, page 5, l. 22-page 6, l. 7).
As correctly argued by appellants, the examiner has not
indicated that Grill discloses or suggests that the portion of the
substrate 2 under the conductive line 7 is removed in any manner
(Brief, page 6). Therefore the examiner has not shown that the
conductive line 7 is not attached to the underlying substrate
(id.). Accordingly, although the examiner has shown that the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007