Appeal No. 1998-2918
Application No. 08/508,874
(Id. at li. 6-15.)
Claim 1 is thus inconsistent with the disclosed invention. The "edge" of silicon
layer 13 is not present at the step of "providing a semiconductor substrate" (Fig. 1).
The "edge" is formed during the later step of oxidation (results shown in Figs. 3 and 4).
While the scope of the claim might be reasonably clear when read "in a vacuum," when
the terms are interpreted in light of the specification, as they must, a latent ambiguity
renders the scope of the claim indeterminate. See Moore, 439 F.2d at 1255 n.2, 169
USPQ at 238 n.2 (discussing latent ambiguity in claims). We also note that appellants
point to the specification at page 7, lines 21-27 as “support” for the amendment filed
August 12, 1996 (Paper No. 4), according to the Remarks accompanying said
amendment. We further note that appellants, in the Brief's "Summary of the Invention,"
refers to the "edge" of silicon layer 13 as the same structure we have pointed out in
instant Figure 4.
Instant claim 10, the only other independent claim on appeal, also fails to
describe appellants' disclosed process. The "edge" of the silicon layer that the "bird's
head encroachment region" is "above" is recited as being present during the first step,
that of "providing a substrate." Claims 1-16 thus fail to pass muster under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph.
CONCLUSION
The section 103 rejection of claims 1-16 is reversed.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007