Appeal No. 2005-0287 Page 9
Application No. 09/216,214
In this regard, we further note that the claim term “aligned” is
consonant with describing device features that are in proper
relative position after using polysilicon gate structure in a
self-aligning method as recited in appellant’s specification.1
Here, the examiner simply has not made the case as to why
the so rejected claims would have been construed as describing
possession of a new concept or invention not conveyed by the
original disclosure for reasons set forth above and in the
briefs. Consequently, on the present record, we find ourselves
in agreement with appellant's basic position that the original
disclosure reasonably conveys to the ordinarily skilled artisan
that appellant had possession of the claimed subject matter, a
position that the examiner has not effectively refuted by the
rationale presented for the stated rejection. Therefore, the
examiner’s rejection under § 112, first paragraph, with regard to
the alleged lack of descriptive support cannot be sustained.
1 The term “aligned” as used in appellant’s claims does not
require a strict linear or precisely parallel relationship of
edges of the source drain regions and the gate sidewall silicide
layer but rather is understood to encompass a proper relative
positioning of those features within tolerances as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g.,
definitions 2 of “align” and definition 4a of “alignment” at page
53 of Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Meriam-
Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA, 1993 (copy appended to decision).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007