Appeal No. 2005-2277 Page 4
Application No. 10/099,680
II. OPINION
"Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we
focus on the main point of contention therebetween." Ex parte Sehr, No. 2003-2165,
2005 WL 191041, at *2 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004). Noting that "Applicant has not
claimed 'only one ion implantation,' moreover, Applicant has chosen the term
'comprising' as the transitional element of the preamble," (Examiner's Answer at 6), the
examiner asserts, "Applicant's claim language as recited may include additional method
steps and the Bae reference still anticipates the claim language despite the existence of
an extra ion implantation step teaching." (Id.) The appellant argues, "From the written
description of the filed application it can be appreciated that a clear aim and benefit of
the processes disclosed in the filed application is the fabrication of the source,
drain, field-relief regions, and the channel in a single implantation, and not the multiple
implants that . . . are required by Bae." (Reply Br. at 7-8.)
"In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the independent claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claim is anticipated." Ex parte Kaysen, No. 2003-
0553, 2004 WL 1697755, at *2 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007