Appeal 2007-0665
Application 09/772,986
of Appellants, i.e., there is no disclosure, expressly or inherently, of a thin
film semiconductor device with a gate electrode having a thickness of less
than 100 nm as claimed.
We do not disagree with the Examiner that Hisao’s disclosure of a
range lower limit combined gate thickness of about 100 nm could be
reasonably interpreted as “allowing” for thicknesses slightly above or below
100 nm, i.e., a value which would overlap the claimed range of “less than
100 nm.” See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936
(Fed. Cir. 1990). Since there are no specific examples disclosed in Hisao of
gate thicknesses less than 100 nm, however, the appealed claims would be
anticipated only if the claimed subject matter were disclosed in Hisao “with
sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation under the statute.” See
Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999, 78 USPQ2d 1417,
1423 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In our view, Hisao’s disclosed combined gate
thickness range of 100-500 nm, with no specific gate thickness examples of
less than 100 nm, does not describe the claimed gate thickness feature of
“less than 100 nm” with sufficient specificity to form a basis for a rejection
based on anticipation.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim limitations are
not present in the disclosure of Hisao, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1 and 5, nor of claims 2-
4, 6-8, 13, and 15 dependent thereon.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013