Appeal No. 1997-3695
Application No. 08/097,526
the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and limitations appearing in the specification
are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
We note that Appellants’ claims 1 and 2 recite
1. ... forming an epitaxy mask by sidewall defined
masking; and
forming one or more quantized regions by selective
deposition ...
2. ... forming an epitaxy mask on a crystalline
substrate...;
selectively depositing one or more epitaxial layers... to
form a laterally segmented quantum well structure; and
epitaxially depositing a tunneling barrier on said
segmented quantum well structure [emphasis added].
We find that Appellants’ claim 1 requires the step of
forming an epitaxy mask that is made by sidewall defined
masking as outlined by Appellants on page 3, lines 14 through
18 of the specification. The epitaxy mask is used for
selective epitaxial deposition of the quantized regions having
electron confinement layers. We note that during the step of
selective epitaxial deposition, the sidewall epitaxy mask
blocks the formation of epitaxial layer on the substrate where
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007