Appeal No. 2004-0657
Application No. 09/845,604
211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Concerning the § 102 rejection specifically, it is important to
bear in mind that the law of anticipation requires a distinction be
made between the invention described and the invention claimed and
accordingly that anticipation law does not require a reference to
teach what the subject specification teaches. It is only necessary
that the claims under review “read on” something disclosed in the
reference whereby all limitations of the claim are found in the
reference or are “fully met” by it. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark
Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Our application of these principles to the claims on appeal
leads us to find that claim 1 is anticipated by Muller. As
correctly indicated by the Examiner, patentee discloses a method of
making a double gated MOSFET which includes forming a silicon-
insulator stack wherein patentee’s SOI fin 4 is capped with
insulation 15 or 20 (e.g., see lines 36-53 in column 5 as well as
Figures 2-7 and the disclosures relating thereto). This prior art
method also includes insulating the vertical surfaces of the
silicon film with an oxide layer 12 (see Figure 7A and the
disclosure relating thereto) and forming separate gate electrodes
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007