Appeal No. 1998-0856
Application 08/486,022
At the outset, Schlar’s insulating layer is described as limiting the conduction of heat between
the detecting p-n junctions and the reference junctions. Thus, Schlar’s insulating layer serves the
specific purpose of insulating the detector. The examiner, however, has provided no motivation or
suggestion as to why one skilled in the art would replace the required insulating layer of Schlar with a
filter layer. Indeed, there is no teaching in LaBaw that would suggest that the filter of LaBaw will act as
a suitable insulating layer for Schlar’s detector.
Schlar’s detector array possesses a thin oxide layer on which a black absorbing layer is
deposited and patterned to provide selective IR absorption. Accordingly, Schlar’s detector possesses
a filter layer. Neither LaBaw nor Schlar, however, suggest that one skilled in the art should replace or
combine the filter layer of Schlar with the specific filter of LaBaw. Further, there is no teaching that
such a combination or substitution of the filters would lead one skilled in the art to form a detector
having a filter spanning an opening in a substrate with a thermopile being formed upon the filter surface
opposite the opening (Independent claim 11) or form a detector where the thermopile is supported by a
filter layer spanning a cavity (Independent claims 1 and 6).
As the Schlar and LaBaw references taken as a whole fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness as to the claimed invention, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-12
and 16-18 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Schlar in view of LaBaw.
Rejections over Villers, Hopfer, Steinbruegge, Rancourt and Tar
Page 7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007