Appeal No. 97-0168
Application No. 08/348,991
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the inadequate written description
rejection of claims 23, 25, 28, 30 through 34, 37, 38, 41, 42,
44, 46, and 48.
The examiner states that "[t]he 'p-n junction of the
collecting region is exposed to an edge surface' is new3
matter, not originally disclosed or described here." The
examiner further asserts
that there was no mention anywhere in the
specification of any "junction exposed at an edge",
nor was there any indication that the drawings here
represent the entire device or that the boundaries
of the drawing represent physical boundaries or
"edge surfaces" of the device, and absent any
specific indication, there would be no reason to
suppose that the drawings were supposed to represent
a physical "edge" of the device, rather than merely
draftsman's conventions. (answer, page 4)
We disagree with the examiner. We find that the language
used in the specification in combination with the drawings
The actual language of the claims, as amended on November 28, 1994, is3
"a boundary between said one collecting region and said absorption layer is
exposed to an edge surface of the device."
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007