Appeal No. 2004-0619
Application No. 10/061,140
described is that of a notch in a side of the
gate structure. Following the Courts holding
in Winner, claims 1, 9, and 14 are therefore
limited as such and the examiner is incorrect
in trying to broaden the meaning of the term
notch to include that described in the Burr
patent.
However, there is nothing in the Winner decision
which requires that claims in an application be limited to a sole
disclosed embodiment. Instead, as previously explained, during
examination proceedings, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re
Hyatt, 211 F.3d at 1372, 54 USPQ2d at 1667. Furthermore, contrary
to the implication of the Appellants’ aforequoted argument, the
notch of Burr, like the Appellants’ notch, is “in a side of the
gate structure” (brief, page 4), namely, the left side as viewing
Figure 1A of the patent.
For the reasons expressed above and in the answer, it is our
determination that the Examiner has established a prima facie case
of anticipation which the Appellants have failed to successfully
rebut. We shall sustain, therefore, the Examiner’s § 102 rejection
of claims 1-3 and 14-16 as being anticipated by Burr. See In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007