Appeal 2006-1512
Application 10/131,455
(Reply Br. 2). The Appellant points to the disclosure of the Specification
referencing the deposition of aluminum layers and the deposition of
aluminum-copper layers as examples of materials to be deposited (Reply Br.
3-4). The cited portion of the Specification referring to the deposition of
aluminum layers is not supportive of Appellant’s position because this
discussion refers to the prior art (i.e. US 5,810,931). Thus, Appellant has
only referred to the deposition of aluminum-copper layers in support of their
claimed invention. However, the claimed invention is not limited to the
application of aluminum-copper layers. The claimed invention is
sufficiently broad to encompass the application of any type of material layer
suitable for deposition, such as, copper, aluminum, and titanium-tungsten.
The Appellant has not directed us to portions of the Specification that
describe the other conditions required for selecting the appropriate distance.
That is, Appellant has not identified other characteristics that must be met in
order to determine the appropriate “second distance” for a clamp ring
designed for deposition of a layer formed from a material other than
aluminum-copper.
A person of ordinary skill in the art of deposition technology forming
clamp rings would not understand what “second distances” would infringe
the claimed invention. See All Dental Prodx, LLC v. Advantage Dental
Products, Inc., 309 F.3d 774, 779-80, 64 USPQ2d 1945, 1949 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (“The primary purpose of the definiteness requirement is to ensure
that the claims are written in such a way that they give notice to the public of
the extent of the legal protection afforded by the patent, so that interested
members of the public, e.g., competitors of the patent owner, can determine
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013