Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559
removed and resulting structure of Figure 5 is then annealed. [citing
paragraph 23 of appellant’s specification].
Such patterning of a layer can be clearly be seen by comparing the views
provided by Figures 4 and 5. The patterning causes a portion of the layer
21 in Figure 4 to be removed, resulting in the mesa 23 shown in Figure 5.
Thus, the term “pattern” and its alternative forms “patterning” and
“patterned”, when considered in the context of the specification, clearly
refer to selective material removal. In the claims, therefore, a “patterned”
layer is one in which at least some portion of the layer has been removed
and “patterning” a layer refers to removal of at least some portion of the
layer.
Appellant concludes (id.) “those skilled in the semiconductor art readily
understand that ‘patterning’ means a material-removal process is being
performed, for example involving masking and selective removal or some
material.”
We concur with the examiner’s interpretation. In analyzing the scope of
the claim, office personnel must rely on appellants’ disclosure to properly
determine the meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v. Westview
Instruments, Inc., 52 F3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
“[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be confused with
adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.”
(Emphasis original) In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348, 64
USPQ2d 1202, 1205, (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Intervet Am. Inc v. Kee-Vet Labs.,
Inc. , 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claim 28 contains the limitation “forming a patterned doping layer above
the passivation layer.” It is readily apparent that the term “patterned” in this
limitation is describing the doping layer as having a pattern. We do not consider
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007