F 54. Leung additionally argues that Leung’s involved claims are supported by a written description
because they are supported by the specifications of the parent, grandparent, and great
grandparent applications which are said to be incorporated by reference into the 143
Specification. Paper 85, pp. 19-22.
F 55. However, Leung, in a subsequently filed paper, has specifically disclaimed reliance upon the
additional subject matter present in the parent and grandparent applications to support the
involved claims:
[T]he “new matter” contained in the [parent and grandparent] applications that
makes the [143] application a C-I-P with respect to the [great-grandparent]
application is not used in anyway to support the claims of the [143]
application.
Paper 104, p. 15.
F 56. Leung also admits that the preliminary amendment submitted with the filing of the 143
Application is not part of the original disclosure of the 143 Application. Paper 104, p. 5.
F 57. With respect to the new matter argument Leung argues that the preliminary amendment did
not add any information not already supported by the parent, grandparent, and great
grandparent applications. Paper 85, p. 19.
F 58. Leung’s opposition (Paper 85) does not address the issue that biasing the substrate is taught
by the 143 Specification to be a necessary or essential part of the Leung invention.
The Chang Declaration
F 59. Leung relies on the testimony of Dr. Mei Chang (LX 2021).
F 60. Dr. Chang testifies:4
11. In one aspect the . . . specification teaches, the use of a hydrogen
plasma to reduce the carbon content and the resistivity of a metal nitride layer
deposited using chemical vapor deposition (CVD) through decomposition of
an organometallic precursor, which is a limitation of Leung claims 13, 19, 20
and 26. Specifically, on page 8, lines 18-21, the . . . specification states that
“the precursor gas used to form the plasma for the post-deposition treatment
4 Dr. Chang’s testimony was specifically directed to the specification of the great-grandparent
application. However, since the original specification of the great-grandparent is admitted to be and appears to be
identical to the original specification of the 143 Application (See F6 and F7, above), we have considered Dr. Chang’s
testimony to be equally applicable to the 143 Specification. We need not refer to any additional content that may be
present in the parent and grandparent applications since Leung has disclaimed reliance on whatever additional description
is present in those applications. Paper 104, p. 15.
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007