Appeal 2007-1234
Application 10/017,990
We begin our analysis by noting that the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit has stated: “[w]hen the applicant states the meaning that the
claim terms are intended to have, the claims are examined with that
meaning, in order to achieve a complete exploration of the applicant's
invention and its relation to the prior art.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (internal citation omitted). Our
reviewing court has further determined that “the specification is ‘the single
best guide to the meaning of a disputed term,’ and that the specification ‘acts
as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it
defines terms by implication.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321,
75 USPQ2d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations
omitted).
This reasoning is applicable here and we interpret the claim
language as advanced by Appellants. Thus, when we construe the
claim term “well” as (1), “a region that has a specific function and can
be formed by a number of different methods including ion
implantation, thermal diffusion etc.,” and as (2), “a region formed in a
semiconductor in which an electronic device is formed” (as argued by
Appellants, see Br. 4, ¶ 2), we find the weight of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s position. In particular, we agree with the
Examiner that Husher’s region 160 (Fig. 3) meets both prongs of
Appellants’ argued broad definition. We further find the Examiner’s
interpretation of the recited term “well” is consistent with the usage of
that term within the Specification (see Specification, e.g., well 32a
and well 32b, p. 7, ll. 13-17; p-type well 34, p. 8, ll. 6-10). Therefore,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013