Appeal No. 2005-0166
Application 09/789,872
by the artisan. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236,
238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability of the claim language depends on
whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is
claimed in light of the specification. Seattle Box Co., v.
Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ
568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We essentially agree with all of
appellants’ arguments in the brief. Notwithstanding the
examiner’s assertions to the contrary, we are unable to find any
reason why the artisan would have any difficulty understanding
the scope of the claimed invention in light of the disclosure.
The correlation of manufacturing characteristic data, such as the
critical dimension of a gate electrode, with a manufacturing
metric, such as power consumption, would be clearly understood in
light of the description of appellants’ Figure 2.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1-48 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Simmons
taken alone. Appellants have indicated that the claims on appeal
stand or fall together [brief, page 3]. Consistent with this
indication appellants have made no separate arguments with
respect to any of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, all the
claims before us will stand or fall together. Note In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007