Appeal 2006-3235
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,696
1 liquid crystal materials to detect a “hot spot,” which is a region having a
2 temperature higher than a predetermined temperature.
3
4 ISSUE 3 – IS CLAIM 11 LIMITED TO FAILURE ANALYSIS?
5 A. Facts
6 The relevant facts are the same facts given above in the discussion of
7 the field of endeavor.
8 B. Principles of Law
9 As explained above, Claim 11 will be given its broadest reasonable
10 interpretation consistent with the patent specification. Am. Acad., 367 F.3d
11 at 1364, 70 USPQ2d at 1830; Yamamoto, 740 F.2d at 1571-72, 222 USPQ2d
12 at 936. While such claim interpretation must take into account any
13 definitions presented in the specification, Am. Acad., 367 F.3d at 1364,
14 70 USPQ2d at 1830, limitations from examples given in the specification are
15 not to be read into the claims. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
16 848 F.2d 1560, 1571, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Nor is it
17 proper to construe claims as limited to a preferred or sole embodiment.
18 Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Envtl. Int’l LC, 460 F.3d 1349, 1357-58, 79
19 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .
20 C. Analysis
21 For purposes of this appeal, we are construing Claim 11 to recite
22 using “liquid crystal” to detect hot spots in a die or wafer, wherein the liquid
23 crystal comprises K-18, or K-15, or K-21, or K-24, or K-27, or K-30, or K-
31
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013