Appeal No. 1998-2884
Application No. 08/495,960
unpersuasive since they are not commensurate with the scope of
representative claim 22. It is axiomatic that, in proceedings
before the PTO, claims in an application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and
that claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Moreover, limitations are not to
be read into the claims
from the specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184,
26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) citing In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). As
pointed out by the Examiner (Answer, page 8), the process
steps set forth in claim 22, contrary to Appellant’s
assertions, recite only the steps for making a trench
isolation structure, a process to which the disclosures of
both Iranmanesh and Okada are directed.
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007