Appeal No. 1997-3728
Application No. 08/323,311
127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-
51 (CCPA 1969). We do not agree with appellants that Claim 6 requires that the capacitor electrodes
(or “conductive material”) be electrically conducting under all conditions. Although the specification
discloses that in the preferred embodiment the islands are rendered “conducting under all operating
conditions,” (specification, page 8), we decline to read disclosed limitations into the claim for the
purpose of avoiding the prior art. Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the
claims. Claim 6 does not require that the islands be “degeneratively doped,” which is disclosed as
rendering the islands conductive under all operating conditions. (See id.)
Appellants also argue that their disclosed process yields greater capacitance as compared to
the prior art. (See Brief, pages 11 and 12.) The amount of capacitance, however, is not claimed.
Since appellants have not shown the rejection of Claims 6 through 8 to be erroneous, we
sustain the Section 103 rejection of the claims.
Claim 9
Appellants argue that Claim 9 “calls for the steps of forming islands of polysilicon, and
degeneratively doping these islands to render them conductive.” (Brief, page 16.) The steps are
“neither taught nor suggested by the cited references.” (Id.)
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007