energy ions does not show any significant affect on resistivity. These plasma-treatment-only examples
were said to have resistivities of 13,500 and 15,500 :ohms-cm compared to the reported resistivities
of 11,360 and 16,000 for control samples which were not post-treated. Application 09/128,143,
Specification, p. 9, ll. 5-20 and p. 10, l. 12 - p. 11, l. 20. The 143 Specification itself characterizes
these plasma only treatments as not having much effect. Application 09/128,143, Specification, p. 11,
ll. 19-20. The 143 Specification does not say or convey that the plasma-only treatments are merely
an embodiment of the invention. Rather, they are presented to demonstrate that it was “highly
unexpected that when a bias voltage was applied to the substrate in a plasma, the sheet resistivity
markedly decreased, and, more importantly, remained stable over time.” Application 09/128,143,
Specification, p. 11, ll. 21-24. Consistent with the written description, the original claims of the 143
Specification similarly required either bombardment with high energy ions or the use of a biased
plasma to improve or change CVD film properties. Thus, the entirety of the original 143
Specification conveys that the use of high energy ions or a biased plasma is the inventive contribution.
The 143 Specification does not demonstrate possession of a process for improving film resistivity and
lowering carbon content which does not include bombardment with high energy ions or treatment in
a biased plasma.
Claims 17, 19, 20 and 26 specifically added to provoke this interference do not require either
treatment with high energy ions or with a biased plasma. These claims broadened the scope of the
invention beyond the scope clearly and unequivocally described in the original 143 Specification. The
original 143 Specification did not convey to a person having ordinary skill in the art that Leung had
possession of a process for reducing resistivity and the carbon content of CVD films that did not
include post-treatment with high energy ions or a biased plasma. The permissible scope of the claims
may be limited by a narrow disclosure. Gentry, 134 F.3d at 1479, 45 USPQ2d at 1503.
In our view, the facts here are comparable to those in Curtis, supra. In that case, Curtis was
denied the benefit of the filing date of a parent application with respect to generic claims directed to
dental flosses having a “friction enhancing coating.” The written description of the parent application
was found not to generically describe friction enhancing coatings. The parent application conveyed
only that a particular material “MCW” could be used as a friction enhancing coating. Curtis’ earlier
application did not convey that any other material could be used as a friction enhancing coating
generically claimed in the later application. In other words, Curtis’ parent specification did not tell
-32-
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007