Appeal No. 95-0634 Page 7
Application 07/962,322
Consequently, whether or not Yamazaki's transistor inherently has
diffusion from the drain into the substrate, Figures 3A and 3B
would not be the place to depict that diffusion.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. During prosecution, we must interpret claims as broadly
as their terms reasonably allow. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321,
13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We do so because
applicants have the opportunity during prosecution to amend their
claims to avoid rejections. We may not interpolate limitations
from disclosed embodiments into the claims. In re Paulsen,
30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
2. Appellant argues that the limitation "clusters of
semiconductor material are distributed in three dimensions so as
to be overlapped in a direction through the layer" can only mean
that the clusters must be distributed "throughout" the insulating
layer. (Paper 14 at 9.) It is clear to us that Appellant
understands his invention to require cluster distribution
throughout the insulating layer. (Paper 14 at 3; Paper 1 at 3
(summary) and 4 (description of Fig. 1).) Indeed, he relies on
this understanding to distinguish Yamazaki, which he argues
teaches that clusters are not distributed through the thickness
of the insulating layer. (Paper 14 at 10, alluding to Yamazaki
2:39-42.) Claim 2, however, is not so limited. We cannot
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007