Appeal No. 2006-1466
Application No. 10/230,838
claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997); and In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
As correctly construed by the examiner, the claim language does not exclude the
“applicator” and the “chemical output element” from being the same component or
device, consistent with the specification disclosure that these components “may be
separate from one another or comprise the same component” (specification, ¶ [0019]).
See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1210-11 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(the
PTO should only limit the claim based on an express disclaimer of a broader definition).
Additionally, we note that other components of the embodiments of Figures 6, 7
and 8 described by Noda fall within the scope of claim 1 on appeal as construed above.
For example, the expanded end opening of the ozonized gas feed tube 31 in Figure 8
“reads on” the “chemical output element” as recited in claim 1 on appeal, being
configured to direct the chemical toward the wafer support such that the resist stripper
substantially continuously moves across a surface of a component on the wafer support
(see Noda, col. 11, ll. 3-6, making it easier to supply the ozone gas and resist stripper
mixture to the “entire surface” of the substrate (col. 10, ll. 17-23)). As another example,
Figure 6 of Noda exemplifies a wafer support (40), a source of resist stripper including a
gaseous component (ejector 2), a source of a chemical that forms gas (ozone) in the
resist stripper (ozone generator 1), an “applicator” (feed tube 112 in conjunction with
supplier 30'), and a “chemical output element” configured to direct the chemical toward
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007