Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
said upper and lower surfaces may themselves each be
considered to include plural inclined surfaces since the angle of
incline of the inner surface 68 gradually varies from a surface
portion at 69.2, 72 to a location near to a surface portion 70
(close to face 69.7). . . .
Accordingly, the angle of incline of a relatively upper surface
(i.e. a second wall surface) near the surface portion 70 will be
greater than the angle of incline of a relatively lower adjacent
surface (i.e. a first wall surface) of the surface portion 69.2, 72.
The Examiner used a dictionary to interpret an "edge" to be a "line
where something begins or ends" (id. at 4) and stated (id.):
Reexamined claim 1 does not call for the first and second wall
surfaces to have an abruptly changing transition boundary
disposed between them. Accordingly, there are no limitations
to prohibit the inner surface 68 of Brahmbhatt from being
interpreted in this rejection as including two (or even more)
surfaces that are separated by lines of beginning and ending.
The Examiner further concluded (id.): "Finally, there is no requirement
from the term 'upper' that the 'upper edge' be considered to have a horizontal
orientation. For example the term 'upper edge' is broad enough to cover an
edge that is slanted."
The Examiner finds that the vertical portion 70 of the surface 68
corresponds to a "second wall surface" (id.). The Examiner states that
"[a]lthough the second wall surface might not be capable of contacting a side
surface of the rectangular device shown (see Fig. 5 or 7) so as to limit
horizontal movement thereof" (id.), the semiconductor device in the claims
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013