Appeal 2007-0918
Application 10/931,868
The Examiner contends that, for the purposes of this invention, the
“claims are drawn to an apparatus and have been treated as apparatus claims
during prosecution of the instant application” (Answer 3).
The Examiner contends that Baum teaches an apparatus for vapor
deposition that consists of a deposition chamber with the substrate and a
vessel outside of the chamber that connects to the chamber for the precursor
composition.
Accordingly, we determine that the issue presented on the record in
this appeal is as follows: Has the Examiner established that the Baum
reference describes a chemical vapor deposition system that comprises a
deposition chamber and a vessel containing a precursor composition as
specified in the independent claims?
We determine that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case
of anticipation. Therefore, we REVERSE the rejection on appeal essentially
for the reasons stated in the Briefs, as well as those reasons set forth below.
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.
We determine that the claims on appeal are directed to a system which
is a combination of a deposition chamber and a vessel containing a precursor
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013