Appeal No. 2005-0520
Application 09/768,271
In re Spence, 261 F.2d 244, 246, 120 USPQ 82, 83 (CCPA 1958); In
re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 231-32, 74 USPQ 107, 109 (CCPA 1947).
In the present case, Yoo specifically claims forming the poly-
silicon floating gate over a field oxide region. While appellant
contends that the floating gate of Yoo is disclosed as “formed
over a field oxide region, not specifically on a field oxide
region” (page 8 of Brief, last paragraph), we agree with the
examiner that when the patent claims are read in light of the
accompanying illustrative drawings, it is proper to conclude that
Yoo claims a polysilicon floating gate on, and in contact with,
the field oxide region. Moreover, the presumption of validity
and enablement of a U.S. patent attaches to unclaimed disclosures
as well as claimed subject matter. Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion
Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355, 65 USPQ2d 1385, 1416 (Fed.
Cir. 2003).
As for the references cited by appellant, appellant has only
demonstrated that in the specific environments discussed in the
references, relatively thin gate oxides are employed. However,
appellant has not established that one of ordinary skill in the
art would not have interpreted the invention of Yoo, a particular
device comprising a 4T SRAM and a floating gate memory on the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007