Appeal No. 95-2503
Application No. 08/024,883
process of forming the first and second lightly doped regions.
Yet, appellant argues that the instant claims, e.g.,
independent claim 1, are not product-by-process claims. This,
of course, is very confusing to the examiner as well as to us.
Appellant notes, on the bottom of page 10 of the
principal brief, that “the claims do not require independent
formation, only that the concentrations and depths of the
regions are ‘independent’.” Again, this is confusing because
as described in the specification and shown in Figures 9 to
10, overlapping portions 18 and 26 appear to have been formed
independently of non-overlapping portions 16 and 24 and it is
this “formation” which makes the selected doping
concentrations and junction depths “independent.” Therefore,
the independence of the first selected concentration and
junction depth from the second concentration and junction
depth and vice-versa is clearly dependent on the formation of
the overlapping and non-overlapping portions.
Accordingly, we find that the term “independent” in
independent claim 1 clearly refers to a process limitation
within a product-by-process claim. There is clear support for
such a finding within the original specification and there is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007