Appeal 2007-1234
Application 10/017,990
Husher. Significantly, Appellants argue the following meaning for the claim
term “well”:
The word well refers to a region that has a specific function and
can be formed by a number of different methods including ion
implantation, thermal diffusion etc. The word well in the
semiconductor arts refers to a region formed in a semiconductor
in which an electronic device is formed.
(Br. 4, ¶ 2).
Thus, Appellants conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of anticipation (Br. 5).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner maintains that the word
“well” has a broad meaning as used in semiconductor terminology. The
Examiner asserts that every region in a semiconductor device has a specific
function, otherwise it would not be in the device. The Examiner broadly
construes the claim term “well” as reading on any doped region in a
semiconductor substrate (Answer 6).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants refer to extrinsic evidence and argue
the Examiner has improperly construed the claim term “well” in light of the
extrinsic references (Reply Br. 2-4, see Appellants’ discussion of “VLSI
Technology”, second edition and “Silicon Processing for the VLSI Era”,
Vol. II).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharm., 432
F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing
Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976
F.2d 1559, 1565, 24 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013