Appeal No. 2005-1668 Application 09/920,891 by Orczyk et al. (Orczyk), Kholodenko et al. (Kholodenko) and Sherstinsky et al. (Sherstinsky) (supplemental answer, pages 4-6).2,3 Our consideration of the ground of rejection requires that we initially interpret representative appealed independent claim 17 by giving the terms thereof the broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, as interpreted by this person, unless another meaning is intended by appellants as established in the written description of the specification, and without reading into the claims any limitation or particular embodiment disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The plain language of claim 17 specifies a computer- readable storage medium having a computer-readable program embodied therein for directing operation of a substrate processing system in accordance with the steps, among others, of “(b)” generating a first high-density plasma in the process chamber to deposit a first portion of the film on the substrate by HDP-CVD, “(c) thereafter, cooling the substrate,” “(d) thereafter, flowing an etchant gas into the process chamber,” “(e) thereafter, providing a second gaseous mixture to the process chamber,” and “(f)” generating a second high-density plasma in the process chamber for a second HDP-CVD step. Similar claim language appears in appealed independent claim 20. The issues in this appeal involve the interpretation of claim term “thereafter.” We determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the written description in the specification that this term is used in its ordinary, dictionary meaning in context of “[f]rom a specific time onward; from then on.”4 Thus, the computer-readable program must include a separate substrate cooling step after completion of the first HDP-CVD step; a separate etching 2 Appealed claims 17 through 22 are all of the claims in the application. See the appendix to the brief. 3 The examiner includes Wang et al. in the listing of Prior Art of Record (supplemental answer, page 3) but does not mention the patent in the remainder of the supplemental answer. 4 See, e.g., The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition 1261 (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1982); Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary 1200 (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company. 1988). - 2 -Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007