Appeal No. 1998-2044
Application No. 08/719,773
manner which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of
the view that the collective evidence relied upon and the
level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the
invention as set forth in claims 10-23. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claim 16 under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The examiner’s rejection
states the following:
The claim contradicts the base claim since the
surface channel must run along the surface by
definition. Clarification is required [answer,
page 4].
Appellants argue that the channel region of their invention is
formed by buried channel region 24 and surface channel region
26 (Figures 1 and 2). Appellants note that surface channel
region 26 clearly has a length between 20% and 50% of the
channel length of both regions combined [brief, pages 5-6].
The general rule is that a claim must set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity when read in light of the
disclosure as it would be by the artisan. In re Moore, 439
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007