|
|
Author |
Topic: Inherent Anticipation (Read 4128 times) |
|
patag2001
Junior Member
Posts: 82
|
 |
Inherent Anticipation
« on: Apr 5th, 2007, 11:54am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
I am looking for an example of inherent anticipation.
The diffusion of dopants within a bulk semiconductor material occurs in directions both transverse to the surface receiving the dopants and laterally. The amount of lateral diffusion is commensurate with the depth of the diffused dopants. There is no known physical way to diffuse dopants without diffusing them laterally.
Assume prior art citing a patent to a semiconductor process including steps A and B.
The rejected claim includes steps A, B and C. Step C is laterally diffusing dopants.
Since there is no known physical way to diffuse dopants without diffusing them laterally, is it appropriate to say step is C is inherently anticipated by the reference?
Many thanks!
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
pentazole
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
|
Re: Inherent Anticipation
« Reply #1 on: Jun 21st, 2007, 4:00pm » |
Quote Modify
|
What you say seems like proper inherency. Here's some easy inherency mistakes drafting composition claims.
Composition A comprising:
30-70% X
30-70% Y
wherein composition A has a melt volume rate of M.
Art: composition B comprising:
30-70% X
30-70% Y
A is anticipated by B. MVR is inherent with the composition because if the two compositions are the same, they will have the same MVR.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
TataBoxInhibitor
Full Member
Posts: 456
|
|
Re: Inherent Anticipation
« Reply #2 on: Jun 23rd, 2007, 9:35am » |
Quote Modify
|
good example.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Ned
Guest
|
|
Re: Inherent Anticipation
« Reply #3 on: Aug 19th, 2007, 2:25pm » |
Quote Modify
 Remove
|
Any good arguments to refute inherency that have been successful?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
pentazole
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
|
Re: Inherent Anticipation
« Reply #4 on: Aug 21st, 2007, 10:24am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 19th, 2007, 2:25pm, Ned wrote:| Any good arguments to refute inherency that have been successful? |
|
argue that the articles/compositions in question are not the same, thus their properties aren't wouldn't be anticipated by inherency, and if they do, the PTO needs to give technical argument/reference as to why.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print