Appeal No. 2004-1032 Page 8
Application No. 09/835,510
the specific alloy film compositions of the specification
examples, including the specific sputter deposition methods of
preparing same, as outlined in the examples of the specification.
In this regard, we note, for example, that the film compositions
according to appellants’ invention reported in Table B at page 7
of the specification include either 9.6 % Cu and 17.8 % Hf or 6.5
% Cu and 18.3 % Hf. Representative claim 1 does not require any
particular amount of Hf besides the limitation that the amount of
Ti plus Hf is between 50-55%. The examples of Table B wherein
the tested alloy Hf content is either 17.8 % or 18.3 % is clearly
not commensurate with the claimed amounts of Hf. Similarly,
appellants have not established how a test of an alloy including
6.5% Cu % would predict a result of an alloy including only 2% Cu
as is within the scope of the representative claim 1. Thus, it
is apparent that appellants’ evidence is considerably more narrow
in scope than the representative appealed claim 1. See In re
Dill, 604 F.2d 1356, 1361, 202 USPQ 805, 808 (CCPA 1979).
Moreover, appellants simply have not shown that the example
prepared for comparison, a film composition including 17.6 % Hf
(Table B) using the specified sputter deposition method reported
in Example 1 represents the closest prior art. Hence, we are not
satisfied that the evidence of record that is offered
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007