Ex Parte 6357595 et al - Page 12



                Appeal 2006-3236                                                                                
                Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006                                               

                       said upper and lower surfaces may themselves each be                                     
                       considered to include plural inclined surfaces since the angle of                        
                       incline of the inner surface 68 gradually varies from a surface                          
                       portion at 69.2, 72 to a location near to a surface portion 70                           
                       (close to face 69.7). . . .                                                              
                       Accordingly, the angle of incline of a relatively upper surface                          
                       (i.e. a second wall surface) near the surface portion 70 will be                         
                       greater than the angle of incline of a relatively lower adjacent                         
                       surface (i.e. a first wall surface) of the surface portion 69.2, 72.                     
                       The Examiner used a dictionary to interpret an "edge" to be a "line                      
                where something begins or ends" (id. at 4) and stated (id.):                                    
                       Reexamined claim 1 does not call for the first and second wall                           
                       surfaces to have an abruptly changing transition boundary                                
                       disposed between them.  Accordingly, there are no limitations                            
                       to prohibit the inner surface 68 of Brahmbhatt from being                                
                       interpreted in this rejection as including two (or even more)                            
                       surfaces that are separated by lines of beginning and ending.                            
                The Examiner further concluded (id.):  "Finally, there is no requirement                        
                from the term 'upper' that the 'upper edge' be considered to have a horizontal                  
                orientation.  For example the term 'upper edge' is broad enough to cover an                     
                edge that is slanted."                                                                          
                       The Examiner finds that the vertical portion 70 of the surface 68                        
                corresponds to a "second wall surface" (id.).  The Examiner states that                         
                "[a]lthough the second wall surface might not be capable of contacting a side                   
                surface of the rectangular device shown (see Fig. 5 or 7) so as to limit                        
                horizontal movement thereof" (id.), the semiconductor device in the claims                      

                                                     - 12 -                                                     



Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013