Ex Parte Wu et al - Page 4


               Appeal 2007-1234                                                                             
               Application 10/017,990                                                                       
               Husher.  Significantly, Appellants argue the following meaning for the claim                 
               term “well”:                                                                                 
                      The word well refers to a region that has a specific function and                     
                      can be formed by a number of different methods including ion                          
                      implantation, thermal diffusion etc. The word well in the                             
                      semiconductor arts refers to a region formed in a semiconductor                       
                      in which an electronic device is formed.                                              
               (Br. 4, ¶ 2).                                                                                
                      Thus, Appellants conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a                 
               prima facie case of anticipation (Br. 5).                                                    
                      The Examiner disagrees.  The Examiner maintains that the word                         
               “well” has a broad meaning as used in semiconductor terminology. The                         
               Examiner asserts that every region in a semiconductor device has a specific                  
               function, otherwise it would not be in the device. The Examiner broadly                      
               construes the claim term “well” as reading on any doped region in a                          
               semiconductor substrate (Answer 6).                                                          
                      In the Reply Brief, Appellants refer to extrinsic evidence and argue                  
               the Examiner has improperly construed the claim term “well” in light of the                  
               extrinsic references (Reply Br. 2-4, see Appellants’ discussion of “VLSI                     
               Technology”, second edition and “Silicon Processing for the VLSI Era”,                       
               Vol. II).                                                                                    
                      In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference               
               that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim                   
               invalidates that claim by anticipation.  Perricone v. Medicis Pharm., 432                    
               F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing                         
               Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976                         
               F.2d 1559, 1565, 24 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).                                     

                                                     4                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013