Ex Parte YAMAZAKI - Page 7




                Appeal No. 1996-0478                                                                                                     
                Application No. 08/171,769                                                                                               



                                Generally, an obviousness-type double patenting analysis entails                                         
                        two steps.  First, as a matter of law, a court construes the claim in the                                        
                        earlier patent and the claim in the later patent and determines the                                              
                        differences.   Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Gypsum Co.,                                                
                        195 F.3d 1322, 1326, 52 USPQ2d 1590, 1593 (Fed. Cir. 1999).  Second,                                             
                        the court determines whether the differences in subject matter between                                           
                        the two claims render the claims patentably distinct.  Id. at 1327, 52                                           
                        USPQ2d at 1595.  A later claim that is not patentably distinct from an                                           
                        earlier claim in a commonly owned patent is invalid for obvious-type                                             
                        double patenting.  In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1431, 46 USPQ2d 1226,                                              
                        1229 (Fed. Cir. 1998).                                                                                           
                        Here, appellant argues that the obvious-type (non-statutory) double patenting                                    
                rejection required a comparison of the issued claims with the pending claims. (See                                       
                brief at page 5.)  We agree with appellant.  Appellant argues that when a comparison                                     
                of the claimed invention is made with the claims of the ‘044 patent, the pending claims                                  
                are patentably distinct from those of the ‘044 patent.  (See brief at page 9.)  We agree                                 
                with appellant.  Appellant argues that each of the independent claims requires that the                                  
                gate insulating layer extend beyond the edge of the gate electrode such that the                                         
                exposure to light irradiation is carried out through the part of the gate insulating layer                               
                located outside the gate electrode.  (See brief at page 9.)  We note that the language                                   
                of independent claims 24 and 27 does not specifically recite forming the gate                                            
                insulating layer to extend beyond the gate electrode.  When asked at the oral hearing,                                   
                appellant’s representative argued that the “wherein clause” of claims 24 and 27 clearly                                  
                recites that the irradiation is carried out through a part of the gate insulating layer                                  
                thereby clearly setting forth that the gate insulating layer extends beyond the gate                                     
                electrode over the source and drain regions.  We agree with appellant.   At the oral                                     
                                                                   7                                                                     



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007