Appeal 2006-1512
Application 10/131,455
whether or not they infringe.). A person of ordinary skill in the art designing
a clamp ring for the deposition of metal films would not appreciate when the
claimed invention has been infringed. This is because the Specification
describes that the “second distance” is not the same for all types of layers.1
(See the discussion of aluminum layers versus aluminum-copper layers)
B. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Implicit in our review of the Examiner’s anticipation analysis is that
the claim must first have been correctly construed to define the scope and
meaning of each contested limitation. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d
1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). During prosecution
before the Examiner, the claim language should be given its broadest
reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account any
definitions or enlightenment contained in the written description of
Appellant’s Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[T]he specification ‘is always
highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive;
it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” See Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc).
Applying the preceding legal principles we determine that the claims
on appeal are directed to a clamp ring for securing a substrate comprising a
body, one or more substrate contacting surfaces projecting from the body,
1 It is noted that the Specification describes the invention as solving a need
in the art for aluminum-copper alloy deposition (page 4). However the
claims are not so limited.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013