Appeal No. 2005-1220
Application No. 09/270,606 Page 10
oxide surface that is polished is removed prior to a convergence
point being reached. Yet, appellant recognizes that graph as
depicting a low area removal rate consistent with the disclosed
invention (involving a substantially zero rate of removal of the
low area structure). Consequently, we interpret the claimed
“substantially zero” rate of removal of the low structure areas
of the oxide layer to include rates of removal that are
significant but low relative to the rate of removal of the high
structure area removal rate such that a convergence point
(planarization) is reasonably achieved.4 In like fashion, our
review of appellant’s drawing figures lead us to the conclusion
that the claim term “approximating the blanket polishing rate” is
inclusive of polishing rates that deviate significantly from a
blanket polishing rate so long as those rates are relatively high
as compared to the rate at which the low structures of the oxide
layer is removed during polishing such that planarization is
obtained without using a so-called “dummy structure”.5
4 After all, it is well settled that claim terms are given
their broadest reasonable meaning consistent with the
specification during examination proceedings before the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office. In this regard, appellant’s claims
clearly are not limited to high and low area polish removal rates
as depicted in the idealized graph of appellant’s drawing figure
1.
5 Those claimed rate terms involve some ambiguity as a
result of appellant’s use of terms of degree in claiming the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007