Appeal No. 1997-3916
Application No. 08/429,650
examiner’s apparent position (answer, pages 4 and 5) is that the alignment relationship set forth in the
preamble of claim 25 is not clearly defined and
contradicts the language found in the body of the claim. The examiner states (answer, pages 4 and 5) that
“opening a portion through the gate electrode does not mean that the buried layer formed by implanting
impurities through that opening is aligned with the gate, since there is no common line or boundary between
the gate and the buried layer.” In the examiner’s opinion, (answer, page 4) “the term ‘aligned’ has a
specific meaning, which is to have boundaries in line.” Appellants assert (brief, page 9) that the claim
language is consistent with the teachings of the specification, and that the examiner’s very narrow definition
of the term “aligned” is improper. We agree. As pointed out by our reviewing court, "[T]he name of the
game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir.
1998). Claims will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, In
re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The claim language in question is as
follows:
A field effect transistor having an aligned anti-punchthrough buried implant
channel, comprising. . . a buried layer of implanted boron ions in said substrate,
below and centered on said gate electrode and forming a buried anti-punchthrough
implant channel which is narrower than said gate electrode
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007