Appeal No. 95-3055
Application No. 08/111,765
Claims 2 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
applicants regard as their invention.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
The particular language in claim 11 which the examiner finds
indefinite is: “associated with each dopant atomYa wave
function…wave function of any given dopant atom extends into…”
and “t1 is much greater than t2 such that…behaves substantially
as if the dopant atoms were present in uniform first
semiconductor material.” The examiner’s apparent position is
that there is only one wave function for the totality of charge
carriers and it is indefinite and inaccurate to imply, as the
examiner apparently thinks the instant claim language does, that
there are separate wave functions for each carrier and that some
particular carrier is bound to some specific dopant atom.
In our view, the examiner’s rationale is short on specifics
as to what, exactly, is indefinite about particular claim
language. In any event, to whatever extent the language “wave
function of any given dopant atom” may appear, at first, to be a
bit awkward, appellants have explained its meaning by evidence
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007