Appeal No. 2000-0260
Application No. 08/675,865
Appellants, “... the subject matter of a claim added to an
application after filing need not be literally described in the
specification to satisfy the written description requirement of
§ 112, first paragraph.” (Brief, page 9, citing In re Lukach, 442
F.2d 967, 969, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971). We further agree with
Appellants (id.), that “... to interpret what is inherently
described in a specification, the specification must be read
through the eyes of one skilled in the relevant art.”
Our review of Appellants’ original disclosure reveals that,
while the relative substrate depth relationship of arsenic and
phosphorus is not explicitly stated, the ion implantation energy of
each is clearly set forth (specification, page 4, lines 20-33).
Further, in our view, the evidence provided by Appellants provides
clear support for their position that the skilled artisan would
recognize and appreciate that the variation of ion implantation
energy results in a variation of the depth that doping ions
penetrate into a substrate, i.e., the greater the energy, the
greater the penetration depth. As set forth in the Wolf and Tauber
document2 (presented by Appellants in the December 23, 1997
amendment and attached as Appendix B to Appellants’ Brief), the
2 S. Wolf and R.N. Tauber, “Silicon Processing for the VLSI Era,”
Process Technology, Vol. 1, page 290 (1986).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007