Appeal No. 96-1549
Application 08/296,988
Appellant's second argument is that the buried p-type layer
does not "ha[ve] a lower surface arranged so that the entire
lower surface is in contact with said substrate material," as
required by the claim. The examiner argues that this limitation
is satisfied because the n-type grid material that underlies the
p-type layer is part of the substrate material (Answer at 3). We
agree with Appellant that after the substrate material is
converted to n-type grid material, it is no longer part of the
substrate in the sense of the claim (Reply Br. at 1-2), which
recites a "substrate formed of a material having a first
conductivity type and first impurity concentration." We
therefore agree with Appellant that the entire lower surface of
Wordeman's buried p-type layer is not in contact with the
substrate material, as required by the claim.
The examiner alternatively notes (Answer at 4-5) that the
Board in the previous appeal determined that it would have been
obvious to omit Wordeman's n-type grid altogether, in which case
the p-type layer would have its entire lower surface in contact
with the substrate. Claim 9 in that appeal included a limitation
("wherein the entire buried layer has a lower surface in contact
with said substrate") which is similar to the limitation of
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007