Appeal No. 2002-1411
Application No. 09/144,535
1205 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Intervet Am., Inc. v. Kee-Vet
Labs., Inc., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed. Cir.
1989) (“[L]imitations appearing in the specification will not be
read into claims, and . . . interpreting what is meant by a word
in a claim ‘is not to be confused with adding an extraneous
limitation appearing in the specification, which is
improper.’")).
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
claims 1, 3-10, 12-15, 17-21, 32-35 and 37-41. The rejection is
reversed.
3. The rejection of claims 11 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Mihara in view of Coe and further in view of
Tanabe
Claims 11 and 36 depend from independent claims 1 and 32,
respectively. Tanabe is relied on solely for disclosure of a
Schottky contact comprising platinum silicide. See appeal brief,
page 18; examiner’s answer, page 10. Having found that claims 1
and 32 are patentable over Mihara and Coe and, further, that
Tanabe fails to remedy the deficiencies in the teachings of
Mihara and Coe, we conclude that dependent claims 11 and 36 are
patentable over the combined teachings of Mihara, Coe and Tanabe.
The rejection of claims 11 and 36 is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007