Ex Parte Roedle et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 2012

10555054 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte THOMAS CHRISTIAN ROEDLE,
HENDRIKUS FERDINAND FRANCISCO JOS,
STEPHAN JO CECILE NENRI THEEUWEN,
PETRA CHRISTIAN ANNA HAMMES,
and RADJINDREPERSAD GAJADHARSING
____________

Appeal 2010-005135
Application 10/555,054
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER , Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005135
Application 10/555,054

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to transistor segments
having a first region and a second region with the first region having a first
threshold voltage and the second region having a second threshold voltage
(see Spec. 2:13-15).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. An electronic device comprising a field effect transistor
provided with a plurality of parallel-connected transistor segments having
mutually different threshold voltages, characterized in that each of the
transistor segments comprises a first region and a second region, the first
region having a first threshold voltage and the second region having a
second threshold voltage.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon
the teachings of Jos (US Patent No. 6,020,617, February 1, 2000) in view of
Moller (US Patent Application Publication US 2002/0047140 A1, April 25,
2002).
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Jos and Moller teach the limitation of “transistor segments
having mutually different threshold voltages, characterized in that each of
Appeal 2010-005135
Application 10/555,054

3
the transistor segments comprises a first region and a second region, the first
region having a first threshold voltage and the second region having a
second threshold voltage” as recited in claim 1.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The claims, of course, do not stand alone. Rather, they
are part of “a fully integrated written instrument” consisting
principally of a specification that concludes with the claims.
For that reason, claims “must be read in view of the
specification, of which they are a part.” . . . [T]he specification
“is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.
Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the
meaning of a disputed term.”

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations
omitted).

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s construction of multiple entire
transistors as a segment (Ans. 11) is inconsistent with Appellants’
Specification which explicitly states that “the term segment is understood to
mean a part of a transistor” (see Spec. 1:9-11) (emphasis added) (Reply Br.
4).
We agree with Appellants’ argument. The Specification is the single
best guide to the meaning of a disputed term, and as such, the Examiner’s
construction of a segment as constituting two transistors is inconsistent with
Appellants’ Specification which describes a segment as a part of a transistor,
and thus, unreasonable. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315.
Appeal 2010-005135
Application 10/555,054

4
Moller teaches a transistor having two segments and that each
segment has a different threshold voltage (see Abstract, [0043], claim 1),
and thereby meeting the limitation of “transistor segments having mutually
different threshold voltages” as recited in claim 1. However, Moller does
not further teach that “each of the transistor segments comprises a first
region and a second region, the first region having a first threshold voltage
and the second region having a second threshold voltage” as recited in
claim 1.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and also
the rejections of dependent claim 2-10.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Jos and Moller
teach the limitation of “transistor segments having mutually different
threshold voltages, characterized in that each of the transistor segments
comprises a first region and a second region, the first region having a first
threshold voltage and the second region having a second threshold voltage”
as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-10 is reversed.

REVERSED

pgc