Appeal No. 1997-0513
Application 08/367,644
We understand the Examiner’s position, based on his
interpretation of the claim. However, such an interpretation
of the claimed limitation is one which would result from
looking at the claim in vacuum. We find it clear that
undercuts 34 and 36 in the conducting layer 28 (figs. 3 and 4
of the specification) are provided to extend the opening 32
over a part of the gates 14 and 16, so that insulation 40
provides an extra insulating buffer between the contact 42 and
the conductive layer 28. Whereas we agree with the Examiner
that the claim would have been better drafted had Appellant
employed a better phrase to bring out the inventive feature
that it is the opening, and not the conductive layer, which
extends in part over the gates, we here construe the claim in
light of the specification. For example, the specification
states that “[a]nother important technical advantage of the
present invention is the fact that the conducting layer is
undercut at the contact hole, thereby allowing for sufficient
insulation to be disposed between the contact hole and the
conducting layer.” [Page 3, lines 27 to 31]. We interpret
the claimed limitation as requiring the opening in the
conductive layer to extend from the contact hole over a part
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007