Appeal No. 1997-3161
Application No. 08/450,553
the Examiner’s view (Answer, pages 5 and 6), since the claims
merely recite a particular voltage biasing without reciting
the conductivity types of the substrate and source/drain
regions, the claimed function of “erasing” is indeterminate.
In a related argument, the Examiner questions Appellant’s use
of the term “erase” to categorize the injection of electrons
into the floating gate, alleging that such terminology is
contrary to conventional usage in which “erase” would signify
the removal of electrons from the floating gate.
After reviewing the arguments of record, we are in
agreement with Appellant that no ambiguity or lack of clarity
exists in the claim language. As we alluded to in our
discussion concerning the lack of enablement rejection, the
designation of the particular conductivity types of the
various semiconductor regions in the claims is not necessary
for an understanding of the metes and bounds of the invention.
With respect to the Examiner’s concern with Appellant’s
allegedly unconventional usage of the term “erase”, we note
that, in addition to the clear definition of the term supplied
by Appellant at page 8 of the specification, several of the
references cited by the Examiner in support of his position
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007