Appeal No. 2001-0570
Application No. 09/049,591
(a) a first electrode, said first electrode including a surface of
rugged polysilicon with a maximum thickness of less than about 30 nm;
(b) a dielectric on said surface; and
(c) a second electrode on said dielectric.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Tatsumi et al. [Tatsumi] 5,385,863 Jan. 31, 1995
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite.
Claim 1 stands further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Tatsumi.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning, first, to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, the examiner contends that the claim is indefinite because the language
“maximum thickness of less than about” is alleged to be confusing. The examiner
suggests, instead, “maximum thickness of about.”
The inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is whether the claims do,
in fact, set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision
and particularity. It is here where the definiteness of the language employed must be
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007