Appeal No. 95-3055
Application No. 08/111,765
Thus, while the claim language may not be as precise as the
examiner would like,2 we have evidence from an expert in the
field that skilled artisans would have understood that claim
language to mean what the examiner contends it does not mean.
Thus, we are faced with the situation wherein, on one hand,
the examiner contends that certain claim language is indefinite
because there can be no wave function of an electron or hole,
only a wave function of a collection of electrons or holes, and,
on the other hand, an expert in the field of semiconductor
devices states that the “wave function of the dopant atom” refers
to the “wave function of the electron or hole” and that these
terms are well known and understood by those skilled in the art
of semiconductor devices. The examiner offers no evidence to
buttress his position and/or to contradict the averments of the
expert. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 2
through 12 under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, second paragraph, because, on
balance, we find for appellants and we base our decision on the
statements in the affidavit of Dr. Luryi regarding what skilled
artisans would have understood the term “wave function of the
dopant atom” to mean.
2 We note that although the examiner contends that the language
is indefinite, the examiner never offers an alternative or a
specific suggestion as to what language would please the
examiner.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007