Appeal No. 1998-0152
Application No. 07/966,645
Appellants argue that the examiner admits that
Eichelberger does not teach or suggest the use of an optical
receiver and/or transmitter facing away from the substrate.
This is not a convincing argument because it was the
examiner’s contention that it is Kornrumpf that teaches the
optical receiver positioned as claimed, making it irrelevant
to the rejection that Eichelberger does not disclose the
optical receiver/transmitter facing away from the substrate.
Finally, appellants argue that claim 26 requires forming
a multilayer thin film overlay on the surface of the device
and on a surface of the substrate adjacent and substantially
parallel with the surface of the semiconductor device.
However, the examiner explained, at pages 3-4 of the answer,
how Eichelberger’s multilayer thin film overlay 18, 19 meets
this claim limitation and appellants’ response was merely to
contend that such was not shown by Eichelberger, without
pointing out any error in the examiner’s position. Now,
appellants contend that this claim language “requires that
both the surface of the semiconductor device . . . and the
substrate surface . . . be parallel to each other and that the
thin film extend over both of these parallel surfaces. No
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007