Appeal No. 1999-2834
Application No. 08/483,731
process1 referred to as Membrane Dielectric Isolation (MDI)
(specification, pages 1 through 7, 9 through 29 and 61 through
76), we find that the examiner had a reasonable basis for
questioning the efficacy of the disclosed and claimed invention.
In rebuttal to the examiner’s “reasonable explanation,”
appellant has presented a declaration by Dr. Mark McCord, and a
showing of related technology found in issued patents. The
relevant excerpts from Dr. McCord’s declaration are reproduced as
follows:
5. The Office Action takes the position that a
silicon membrane X-ray emitter array of the type
claimed would not be feasible because of the inability
to form or maintain an array of microminiature vacuum
chambers in the silicon membrane. I respectfully
disagree. Microminature [sic, Microminiature] vacuum
chambers have been previously reported in the technical
literature by those skilled in the art of vacuum
microelectric devices. These have been developed
primarily for the fabrication of miniaturized vacuum
tube devices usling [sic, using] silicon micromachining
techniques. The vacuum chambers are sealed by either
bonding a cover over the cavity in vacuum, or
evaporating metal over the cavity at an oblique angle
to form a seal over the cavity. Subsequent operation
of the devices has also been reported.
1 Appellant has indicated (brief, page 3) that the disclosed
and claimed lithography tool was “pioneered by the present
inventor.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007