Appeal No. 1999-0843
Application No. 08/666,970
source finger connection 2 while the drain finger connection 5
is on the opposite side. It is our view, however, that,
notwithstanding the merits of Appellant’s interpretation of
the finger arrangement of Kaneko, such argument is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1. 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). We find
no recitation in representative claim 1 of any relative
orientation requirement among the source, drain, and gate
electrodes, let alone any recitation of a center line,
imaginary or otherwise.
Lastly, we turn to a consideration of the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 9 based on the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007