Appeal No. 2005-2277 Page 5
Application No. 10/099,680
A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
"Analysis begins with a key legal question — what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, the indefinite article "a" generally "carries the
meaning of 'one or more' in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase
'comprising.'" KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356, 55 USPQ2d
1835, 1839 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "[T]he article 'a' receives a singular interpretation only in
rare circumstances when the patentee evinces a clear intent to so limit the article." Id.,
55 USPQ2d at 1839. To determine whether such circumstances exist, "'[t]he written
description supplies additional context for understanding whether the claim language
limits the patent scope to a single unitary [element] or extends to encompass a device
with multiple [elements].'" Id., 55 USPQ2d at 1839 (quoting Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp.,
122 F.3d 1019, 1024, 43 USPQ2d 1545, 1548 (Fed. Cir.1997)).
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "performing an
implantation in the semiconductor film using at least the first masking layer as an
implantation mask to define source and drain regions, an undoped conduction channel
between the source and drain regions, and a field-relief region having a lower doping
concentration than the drain region between the conduction channel and the drain
region." Turning to the rest of the specification, we find that the written description
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007