Appeal No. 1999-2578
Application No. 08/811,363
implanted at an angle of 60 degrees. The examiner contends that at this angle, “it appears
that source regions are extended below the gate layer although the drawings do not clearly
show the extended portion under the gate layer. Note that the specification is completely
silent whether the source region is extended under the gate layer or not” [answer-page 4].
Within the confines of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, all that
must be shown is that an applicant had possession of the claimed subject matter at the
time of originally filing the patent application. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1563, 1564, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It is clear to us, from original pages 8-9 and Figures 5-8 of the instant disclosure,
that there are implantations at four different angles, A1-A4, with the implantation angles A1
and A2 directed to implantation of N-type dopants which are not meant to penetrate under
the gate layer, and implantation angles A3 and A4 directed to implantation of dopants
which are meant to penetrate under edges 17 of windows 15. These are two
different processes meant to achieve different results, but as far as the instant independent
claims are concerned, there is clear support for the recitations of source regions formed
“so as not to extend under the insulated gate layer” (claim 19) or formed “not under the
gate electrode structure” (claim 28). We agree with appellants’ explanation at page 8 of
the brief and we adopt such explanation as our own in reversing the rejection of claims 19-
34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007