Appeal No. 1998-1850
Application No. 08/596,613
structure 58) and described at page 17, lines 1-21 of the written description. Disclosed is
an insulating layer 54 (Fig. 11), having contact opening 56.
Appellants’ main, or preferred, embodiment is shown in Figures 6 through 10,
having insulating layer 34 with contact opening 36. The specification, at page 16, lines 14-
26 describes the final step of claim 15 in “removing at least a portion of the metal ions that
are implanted into the surface of the insulating layer.” Thus, there are no embodiments
having both an “insulating layer over the silicon nitride layer” (claim 1) and a “patterned
insulating layer having a surface around the contact opening” (claim 15). Absent a
description in the specification with regard to how a device with the two insulating layers is
to be formed, the subject matter set forth by claim 15 cannot be understood to any
reasonable degree of certainty.
The function of claims is (1) to point out what the invention is in such a way as to
distinguish it from the prior art; and (2) to define the scope of protection afforded by the
patent. In re Vamco Mach., Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 1577 n.5, 224 USPQ 617, 635 n.5 (Fed.
Cir. 1985). The legal standard for definiteness is whether a claim reasonably apprises
those of skill in the art of its scope. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d
1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The inquiry is merely to determine whether the claims do, in
fact, set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). The
definiteness of the language employed must be analyzed -- not in a vacuum, but in light of
-14-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007