Appeal No. 2003-2013
Application No. 09/491,230
127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In the present case, appellants' specification describes that the
contacts, or studs, are made from tungsten, aluminum, or copper,
and the specification also discloses other areas of the device as
gate and source regions (14a, 14b and 17a, 17b, respectively).
Hence, we find it reasonable to conclude that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not interpret the claimed first and second
bottom contacts as inclusive of gate and source regions and,
therefore, it is our opinion that the gate and source regions of
Matthews are not a description of the claimed bottom contacts
within the meaning of § 102. In our view, appellants' arguments
during prosecution establish, via file wrapper estoppel, that the
claimed first and second bottom contacts do not encompass gate
and source regions.
As for the examiner's § 103 rejection, the examiner has not
presented a rationale why it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Matthews to incorporate the
claimed first and second bottom contacts in addition to the gate
and source regions.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007