Appeal No. 95-1536
Application 07/746,176
it is clear from appellants disclosure that this language is meant to cover the routine disclosed by
appellants of writing data into memory cell transistors. The use of the term program or programming in
relation to the function does not appear to confuse the meaning of the claims.
Appellants specifically disclose an erase function. Accordingly, when read in light of appellants’
disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known what is meant in the claims by terminology
such as “sequentially erasing the selected memory cell transistors”.
Because appellants specifically disclose “H” and “L” level potentials in their specification, we
find no merit to the position that signal levels referred to in the claims as “high”, “H”, “low” and “L”
have no meaning and render the claims indefinite. Rather than recite specific signal levels, appellants
have chosen to define their invention broadly by indicating the relative sizes of signals used in the
invention.
Lastly, we find no merit to the examiner’s criticism of appellants’ use of the term “NAND” as
having no meaning. At page 2, lines 6-14, appellants explain what constitutes a “NAND cell”.
The Rejections over Prior Art:
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented by both the examiner and the
appellants, we have concluded that none of the prior art rejections should be sustained. We agree in
general with the comments made by appellants; we add the following discussion for emphasis.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007