Appeal No. 2002-0514
Application No. 08/886,388 Page 7
minimum feature dimension could be determined and that
representative claim 44 does not specify a particular photo-
lithography method for fabricating the product but rather is open
to a plethora of photolithographic methods, each of which could
have a different characteristic photolithographic minimum feature
dimension associated therewith. Hence, the specification
provides little help in determining the metes and bounds of the
claimed subject matter.
In addition, a process other than a photolithography process
could be used to manufacture stacked capacitors by a potential
infringer. In such a case, there would be no photolithographic
process from which to derive a “minimum photolithographic feature
dimension” of the potential infringer’s product. Consequently, a
potential infringer may have no way of determining whether the
plate spacing and plug diameter of their device are less than
that required by appellants’ claims.
Appellants refer us to several other patents in an attempt
at establishing that the claim terms in question are definite.
We do not find that argument persuasive for reasons set forth by
the examiner at pages 17-19 of the answer. The claims of this
application are construed in light of the present application
specification not the specifications of other patents.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007