Appeal No. 2005-0814
Application No. 10/036,323
The following prior art reference is cited in appellants’
brief:
Sze, “Basic Device Characteristics,” Physics of Semiconductor
Devices, pp. 433-45, 453-55 (Bell Labs, Inc., 2nd ed., John Wiley
and Sons, New York, 1981).
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Huang.
2. Claims 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
for obviousness in view of Huang taken in combination with Mena.
We have carefully considered the entire record in light of
the opposing positions taken by the appellants and by the
examiner. Having done so, we shall affirm both of the rejections
at issue. The basis for our decision is as follows:
The determinative issue in this appeal relates to the scope
to be ascribed to the term “channel region” in claim 14. The
general principle of claim interpretation is that claims in an
application are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Sneed,
710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The examiner’s view is that “channel region” can be
reasonably construed to include all, or almost all, of the P type
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007