Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559
that this term “patterned” implies the process by which the patterned doping layer
is created. We do not consider the paragraph 23 of appellant’s specification to
provide a special definition of the term “patterned.” Rather, we consider the first
sentence of paragraph 23 “doping layer 21 is patterned to provide doped mesa
23” to be a description of the pattern in the doping layer, and the second
sentence to provide a description of how the pattern is created. We consider
appellant’s asserted definition, that patterning requires a removal process, to be
an attempt to import an extraneous limitation from the specification into the claim.
Accordingly, we consider the scope of claim 28’s limitation of “forming a
patterned doping layer above the passivation layer” to include a doping layer
above the passivation layer which has a pattern, design, we do not consider the
claim to be limited to how the design is produced in the doping layer.
Having determined the scope of the claim, we consider the relevant
teachings of the applied reference, Cockrum. Appellant, on page 8 of the brief,
does not argue that that Cockrum does not teach a doping layer above the
passivation layer, rather that after the doping layer is patterned, by the step of
lifting off the mask 26 (the transition from Cockrum’s figures 4E to 4F), the doping
layer no longer above the passivation layer 18. We disagree with appellant’s
arguments as it relies on appellant’s asserted definition of patterning requiring a
step of removal. We consider the doping layer shown in Cockrum’s figure 4E to
be a patterned doping layer, (layer 30), in that it has a design, having peaks and
troths, the peaks being over the passivation layer (layer 18). One could describe
the sections of the doping layer, which are over the passivation layer (layer 18)
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007