Appeal No. 1998-2044
Application No. 08/719,773
F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability
of the claim language depends on whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand what is claimed in light of the
specification. Seattle Box Co., v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
We fail to understand the examiner’s arguments regarding
the difference between channel regions and carrier locations.
It is clear from the specification in this application that
the channel region labeled 24 forms a buried channel region
and the channel region labeled 26 forms a surface channel
region. Claim 16 simply further limits the recitation in
claim 10 to the effect that the surface channel region has a
length between 20% and 50% of the total channel length between
the source and drain regions. We agree with appellants that
the artisan having considered the specification of this
application would have no difficulty ascertaining the scope of
the invention recited in claim 16. Therefore, the rejection
of claim 16 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is
not sustained.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007