Appeal No. 2006-0318
Application No. 10/195,271
transistor having a P -type amorphous gate (24B) (col. 4, lines 36-+
53; figure 7).
The appellants argue that N-doped silicon is not the same
material as P-doped silicon (brief, page 3). 1
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, as the claim language would have been read by one of
ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification. See In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In
re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
The appellants consider gate materials to be the same material
even though only one of the materials is doped with helium
(specification, page 7). Thus, even though the silicon in one of
Hsu’s gates is N-doped and the silicon in the other gate is P-
doped, the silicon in both gates is the same “first gate material”
as that term is most broadly construed in view of the appellants’
specification.
1The appellants argue that Hsu’s “N silicon is up to 1% +
phosphorus with negligible boron, whereas the P silicon is up to +
1% boron with negligible phosphorus” (brief, page 3). The
appellants do not point out support in Hsu for that argument, and
none is apparent.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007