Appeal No. 95-3055
Application No. 08/111,765
via an affidavit of an expert in the field. More particularly,
of record is an affidavit by Dr. Serge Luryi, filed April 1,
1994. We find that Dr. Luryi is clearly an expert in the field
of semiconductor devices in view of his education, degrees,
authorship, research, patents and experience set forth on pages
1-2 of the affidavit. While Dr. Luryi’s unsubstantiated
statements, at page 2 of the affidavit, regarding enablement, are
not relevant to the issue of definiteness under 35 U.S.C. ' 112,
second paragraph, we find his statements, at pages 2-3 of the
affidavit, regarding the meaning of specific claim language, to
be particularly relevant and enlightening. More particularly,
Dr. Luryi states that it is “common and accepted practice among
semiconductor device physicists to refer to the ‘wave function of
a dopant atom’.” Further, Dr. Luryi states that those skilled in
this particular art “know that this language stands for ‘the wave
function of an electron or hole on the dopant atom,’ as the case
may be.” At the top of page 3 of the affidavit, Dr. Luryi
contends that:
It is an excellent approximation, and therefore
customary in semiconductor device physics, to treat
impurity (including dopant) atoms themselves as
classical objects. Thus the term “wave function of the
dopant atom” gives rise to no confusion among those
skilled in the art, since all skilled practitioners
understand this usage to refer to the wave function of
the electron or hole, as the case may be.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007