Appeal No. 1999-1631
Application 08/733,586
first paragraph. See, e.g., In re Stephens, 529
F.2d 1343, 188 USPQ 659 (CCPA 1976); In re
Borkowski, 57 CCPA 946, 422 F.2d 904, 164 USPQ 642
(1970); In re Gay, 50 CCPA 725, 309 F.2d 769, 135
USPQ 311 (1962).
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 6 under
§ 112, ¶ 1 is reversed.
F. The § 112, ¶ 2 rejection of claims 2, 6, 7, and 14
Claim 2 reads as follows: "The SRAM cell of claim 1
wherein the cell vertical dimension to horizontal dimension
ratio is less than 2:1." The same limitation appears in
claims 7 and 14. Claim 6 is reproduced above.
The examiner's rejection for indefiniteness reads as
follows (Answer at 3):
In claims 2, 7, [and] 14 the cell "vertical
dimension" and "horizontal dimension" do not have a
clear antecedent basis absent claiming what bounds
the "vertical dimension" and "horizontal dimension"
of a cell. In claim 6, a "width" of [a] cell is
vague absent claiming what bounds the "width" of [a]
cell. What comprises the "vertical dimension[,"]
"horizontal dimension" and "width" of a cell is not
claimed. The scope is thereby indefinite.
As the examiner has not objected to the use of the terms
"horizontal" and "vertical" in the other claims, we understand
the examiner's position to be that it is not clear how to
measure the horizontal dimension (i.e., width) or the vertical
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007