Appeal No. 96-0665
Application No. 08/179,887
in the claim which precludes this portion of Fg from being part
of the claimed “first portion.”
We understand that appellant intended to limit the claim
such that only doped regions overlain by the floating gate are
the source, drain and control gate regions and that the floating
gate should not extend beyond these areas to cover additional
doped regions (such as region 4 in Adam) [see page 10 of the
principal brief]. If the claim included such limitations, we
would agree that this would distinguish over that which is taught
by Adam. Unfortunately, this is not what the language of claim3
16 requires. According to the claim language, the floating gate
is “consisting solely” of a first portion and an elongated second
portion, the second portion having a first and second part, as
claimed. This much is shown by Adam. Contrary to appellant’s
intent, there is nothing in the claim which precludes the first
3A possible problem may arise, however, in that it is not
all that clear whether what appellant intended is supported by
the disclosure. For example, viewing appellant’s Fig. 5, as
depicted by appellant at the top of page 4 of the reply brief,
the top portion of first portion 168 appears to overlie more than
control gate region 142 and the very top of the first part of the
elongated second portion appears to go a bit further than the end
of the source and drain regions 138, 140. Thus, it would appear
that appellant’s own disclosure suggests that the floating gate
may, in fact, extend beyond the doped regions of the source,
drain and control gate regions, contrary to what appellant argues
[principal answer - page 10] as his intent.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007