Appeal No. 95-2576
Application 07/962,952
field-effect transistor." We note that Appellant's specification
at page 6, lines 18-21, recites:
As used herein, channel refers to the end-to-end
electrical path through a semiconductor body, for
example, a field-effect transistor.
Appellants conclude that since Appellants' specification clearly
defines the term "channel" as the end-to-end electrical path
through a semiconductor body thereby excluding a metal wire, the
invention is not rendered obvious by the wire lengths taught in
Groves.
When interpreting a claim, words of the claim are generally
given their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless it appears
from the specification or the file history that they were used
differently by the inventor. Carroll Touch, inc. v. Electro
Mechanical Sys., Inc. 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840
(Fed. Cir. 1993). We find that Appellants' specification as well
as the file history show that Appellants used the term "channel"
to mean the end-to-end electrical path through a semiconductor
body. Thus, Appellants' claims distinguish the Grove's wire
lengths and the Examiner erred interpreting the Appellants'
claims as reading on the Grove's wire lengths. Furthermore, we
fail to find that Schinabeck overcomes this deficiency.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007