Appeal 2006-3235
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,696
1 Appellant’s contention that the claimed “detecting hot spot on die or
2 wafer with a hot spot detection method” requires locating the “center” of the
3 hot spot (Br. 18) is unpersuasive because it presumes, incorrectly, that the
4 claimed is limited to failure analysis. Moreover, even assuming the claim
5 were limited to failure analysis, it would not require locating the center of
6 the hot spot rather than just the outline of the hot spot.
7 For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the phrase “detecting hot spot
8 on die or wafer with a hot spot detection method” in Claim 11 would not
9 have been understood to be limited to detecting a hot spot in a failed or
10 defective device.
11 D. Conclusion
12 Claim 11 is not limited to failure analysis.
13 ISSUE 4 – DOES CLAIM 11 PRECLUDE THE USE
14 OF A MIXTURE OF LIQUID CRYSTAL MATERIALS?
15 A. Facts
16 1. Claim 11 reads in pertinent part as follows:
17 11. A new use of liquid crystal for detecting hot
18 spot on die or wafer with a hot spot detection method,
19 said liquid crystal comprises:
20 . . . K-18 nematic liquid crystal, or
21 . . . K-15 nematic liquid crystal; or
22 . . . K-21 nematic liquid crystal; or
23 . . . K-24 nematic liquid crystal; or
24 . . . K-27 nematic liquid crystal; or
25 . . . K-30 nematic liquid crystal; or
26 . . . K-33 nematic liquid crystal; or
27 . . . K-36 nematic liquid crystal.
28
33
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013