Appeal No. 2000-0721 Page 12
Reissue Application No. 08/628,287
Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875, 27 USPQ2d 1123, 1126 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, a claim
should not be denied “solely because of the type of language
used to define the subject matter for which patent protection
is sought.” In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212 n.4, 169 USPQ
226, 228 n.4 (CCPA 1971). With these principles in mind, we
consider the examiner's rejections on the grounds of
indefiniteness and the appellants' arguments.
First, the examiner alleges, "[i]n claims 13, 17, 21, 25,
29, 33, 37, 53, 57, 66 and 67 ... the scope of the
relationship of the 'contact opening' to the 'electrically
conductive storage node' is unclear. Compare claim 5."
(Examiner's Answer at 4-5.) The appellants argue, "the
relationship between 'contact opening 54' and 'the
electrically conductive storage node, conductive material 60,'
is clearly set forth in the specification at column 4, lines
51 through 68 continuing through column 6, lines 1 through 4,
and in drawing FIGS. 7 through 13. The contact opening 54 in
insulating dielectric 52 located on substrate 42 clearly has
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007