Appeal No. 2001-2530 Page 5
Application No. 09/115,250
Techs. v. Titan Wheel Int’l, Inc., 212 F.3d 1377, 1383, 54 USPQ2d
1841, 1845 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Here, appealed claim 16, by virtue of using “comprising,”
does not exclude an interpoly dielectric and control gate as part
of the claimed device. Nor is there any limiting definition in
the specification for the claimed MOS transistor which would
exclude the interpoly dielectric and control gate structure of
Saida.
While we agree with appellant that claim 16 should be read
in light of the specification in giving that claim its broadest
reasonable interpretation, we do not agree that limitations with
respect to problems being addressed, such as impurity diffusion,
during manufacturing steps and purportedly solved as disclosed in
the specification must be imported into the claims. As indicated
above, the “MOS transistor” language of representative appealed
claim 16 does not require a transistor that is limited to “a
basic field effect transistor comprising a single gate electrode
. . .” as argued by appellant (brief, page 6). Nor does it
exclude the EEPROM disclosed by Saida.
Additionally, appellant’s reference to another patent (U.S.
Patent No. 4,868,619) at page 6 of the brief is noted. However,
appellant has not fairly explained how U.S. Patent No. 4,868,619
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007