Appeal No. 2003-1195
Application No. 08/526,339
particularity. It is here where the definiteness of the language
employed must be analyzed–not in a vacuum, but always in light of
the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application
disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the
ordinary skill in the pertinent art. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232,
1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
Applying this test to the instant claims, we find that the
instant claims do, indeed, set out and circumscribe a particular
area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity and
do not run afoul of the dictates of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. It is clear from the instant specification, at
page 6, that there is a diffused source 15 and a diffused
drain 16, in addition to sections within the polysilicon layer
defining a source 21 and a drain 23. When the instant claimed
subject matter is read in light of the specification, we find no
ambiguity in the claim language whatsoever.
The rejection of claims 1-10 and 25-35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
Turning now to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
examiner employs the cover figure of Spangler for a showing of a
substrate composed of insulator material, at least a layer of
doped polysilicon on the substrate surface, with source, gate and
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007