Appeal No. 2003-2013
Application No. 09/491,230
renders it obvious within the meaning of § 103. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the examiner's rejections.
The basis of the examiner's rejections over Matthews is
finding that the gate and source regions of Matthews meet the
requirements for the claimed first and second bottom contacts,
respectively. In other words, it is the examiner's position that
the gate and source of Matthews are contacts which meet the
requirements of the presently claimed first and second bottom
contacts. Appellants, on the other hand, contend that when one
of ordinary skill in the art interprets the claim language in
light of the specification, such a skilled artisan would not read
the first and second bottom contacts as including the gate and
source regions of Matthews.
We must acknowledge that there is a certain appeal in the
examiner's position. Manifestly, the source and gate of Matthews
are made of a conductive material and serve to pass current from
one body to another, as urged by the examiner. However, it is
well settled that claim language is given its broadest reasonable
meaning during prosecution as it would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into consideration the
description of the applicant's specification. In re Morris,
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007