Appeal No. 2005-0900
Application No. 10/098,588
Appellants respond that the half value width limitation
of the claims provides clear warning of what is patent
infringement of the claimed invention (reply brief, pages 2-3).
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 2,
3, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The general rule is that a
claim must set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity when read in
light of the disclosure as it would be by the artisan. In re
Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
Acceptability of the claim language depends on whether one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed in
light of the specification. Seattle Box Co., v. Industrial
Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574
(Fed. Cir. 1984). We agree with appellants that the scope of the
claimed invention is clear. When an etching nozzle is operated,
it has a known etching rate and, therefore, it also has a known
half value width as shown in appellants’ Figure 2. Since the
claimed invention defines the relationship of the radius of the
semiconductor wafer and the radius of the wafer table in terms of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007