Appeal No. 1997-2688
Application No. 08/453,689
doped regions 72 and 74, illustrated in Figure 15, as
“electrodes”. In making this argument, the Examiner
emphasizes the qualifying “proper circumstances” to the
principle that drawings can be relied on to satisfy the
“written description” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. As
asserted by the Examiner (Answer, page 6):
Those proper circumstances were described as
being, “[W]hat the drawing in fact discloses
to one skilled in the art.” Id. One of ordinary
skill in the art would not look at Figure 15 and
determine that elements 72 and 74 were electrodes.
After reviewing the totality of the arguments and
evidence in this case, however, we are in agreement with
Appellants’ position as stated in the Briefs. Initially, we
note that Appellants’ specification (page 8, lines 32-33)
specifically and unambiguously refers to doped regions 72 and
74 as “electrodes”. From the evidence of record, the
description of the operation of these doped regions at pages 8
and 9 of the specification is not inconsistent and certainly
not repugnant to accepted usage of the term “electrode.” 2
2 At page 2 of their Reply Brief, Appellants have
submitted a definition of “electrode” from Webster’s Ninth New
Collegiate Dictionary as “a semiconductor device element that
emits or collects electrons or holes or that controls their
movements.”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007