Appeal No. 2001-2530 Page 4
Application No. 09/115,250
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); accord Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd.,
52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
In the case before us, the examiner (answer, pages 3-5) has
correctly determined that Saida discloses, either expressly or
inherently, every limitation of representative claim 16. In
particular, in the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of the
answer, the examiner properly explains how representative claim
16 reads on structure disclosed by Saida et al.
Appellant does not contest the examiner’s determination that
a MOS transistor reads on the EEPROM disclosed by Saida (see,
e.g., drawing figures 9A-D), except for appellant’s contention
that the interpoly dielectric and control gate included in
Saida’s EEPROM are excluded by the language of claim 16.
During examination proceedings, claim language is given its
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification as it would have been interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152,
36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995). When the transistional
term “comprising” is used in a claim, such a term is interpreted
as including not only the recited elements or components, but
also other elements or components not recited. See Vehicular
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007