Appeal No. 2003-1365
Application No. 09/376,659
(Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations
appearing in the specification are not to be read into the
claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir.
1985). Accordingly, we will initially direct our attention to
Appellants’ claim 10 and first determine its scope.
We note that while claim 10 recites that first and second
protective shoulders be formed on core gate stacks, the claim
does not require formation of the two layers on both sides of
each gate stack before implantation, nor exposing the source or
the drain portions of the substrate. The claim merely requires a
two-layer protective shoulder on one or more side(s) of the gate
stacks. In fact it is the presence of the protective shoulders
that prevents charge migration into the sides of the gate stacks
only where the shoulders are present. There is no other
disclosed or claimed structure that contributes to blocking
charge migration. Therefore, constructing claim 10 as broadly as
possible, we note that if the protective shoulder layers are
present, charge migration into the sides of the gate stacks are
prevented.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007