Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
identifiable physical transition exists where the rounded ridge 69.1 meets the
remainder of surface 68. Furthermore, this ridge supports an edge of an
integrated circuit device, as required of the first wall surface by Claims 1
and 16. However, I agree with the majority that two limitations relating to
the second wall surface are not satisfied. The first is the requirement of
Claim 1 that the second wall surface “extend upward from an upper edge of
said first wall surface.” Instead, the second wall surface extends sideways
from the first wall surface (i.e., rounded ridge 69.1). The second limitation
that is not satisfied is the requirement of Claims 1 and 16 that the second
wall surface limit horizontal movement of the integrated circuit device.
Surface 68 has not been shown to inherently perform this function and the
assertions of inherency by the Examiner and Requester are based on reading
too much into the dimensions in the drawings. See In re Wright, 569 F.2d
1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335 (CCPA 1977) (“Absent any written
description in the specification of quantitative values, arguments based on
measurement of a drawing are of little value. In re Chitayat, 56 CCPA
1343, 408 F.2d 475, 161 USPQ 224 (1969).”); Breen v. Cobb, 487 F.2d 558,
559, 179 USPQ 733, 734 (CCPA 1973) (“The skilled artisan, if he noted the
amount of offset in any of the drawings at all, would regard the showing as
accidental or arbitrary.”).
- 56 -
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013