Ex parte LITTLE - Page 3




              Appeal No. 96-2120                                                                                           
              Application 08/300,097                                                                                       



                     whereby carriers excited from the ground states to the excited energy states and                      
              miniband states by absorption of photons of electromagnetic radiation are transported for                    
              collection when an electric field is applied across the quantum well layers and the                          
              superlattice barrier layers.                                                                                 

              The examiner relies on the following references:                                                             
              Coon et al. (Coon), “Narrow band infrared detection in multiquantum well structures,”                        
              Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 47, No. 3, August 1985, pages 289-291.                                         
              The admitted prior art shown in Figures 1(a) and 1(b) of the application.                                    

              Claims 15, 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  § 103.  As evidence of                                  
              obviousness the examiner offers the admitted prior art and Coon taken together.                              
              Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the examiner, we make reference to                          
              the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.                                                


                                                        OPINION                                                            
              We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced by                         
              the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for                      
              the rejection.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our                    
              decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s                        
              rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s                  
              answer.                                                                                                      

                                                            3                                                              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007