Appeal No. 94-3022
Application 07/855,490
Furthermore, we note that claims 2 and 4, are dependent on
claim 1 and claims 14 and 15 are dependent on claim 13, and
thereby recite the above limitation. Therefore, we find that
Hillenius fails to teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 2,
4, and 13 through 15, and thereby the claims are not anticipated
by Hillenius.
Appellant’s claim 11 recites, inter alia, “a metallization
pattern formed on said semiconductor substrate and including a
plurality of narrow, elongated metal lines” and “a passivation
layer provided over said metallization layer and at least
partially broken up along a length of said at least one of said
elongated metal lines in such a manner that said at least one of
said elongated metal lines traps charge carriers.” [Emphasis
added.]
The Examiner relies on the conductors 5, 6, and 7 of Augusta
to teach the claimed metallization layer formed on the semicon-
ductor, and layer 8 is relied upon as disclosing the claimed
passivation layer. (Paper No. 29, page 3). Appellant argues
that electrode 12 disposed on top of layer 8 acts as the
conductor for trapping charges, rather than conductors 5, 6, or
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007