Appeal No. 96-4052
Application 08/198,511
on the area of the surface where it is required" (col. 7,
lines 22-24), which meets claim 31.
The rejection of claim 31 is sustained. Appellants have
not argued the separate patentability of claims 33 and 34.
Thus, the rejection of claims 33 and 34 is also sustained.
Claims 35-39
This group of claims is directed to the contact. Forrest
discloses "applying a potential to the compound semiconductor"
(col. 1, lines 51-52), but does not describe an ohmic contact
on the top layer or that the contact is removed after etching.
The examiner states that "[o]bviously a contact is needed
for electrochemical etching, and removing it afterward is at
least obvious" (FR2; EA3). Appellants argue that Forrest does
not disclose forming contacts on the compound semiconductor
and "[h]ence, we do not know if the contacts used in the
Forrest et al. process are ohmic contacts (Applicant's claim
35), . . . or whether the contacts are removed after the
etching process (Applicant's claim 39)" (Br7).
We agree with the examiner. A contact is required to
attach the electrical wire to the semiconductor. Kohl, which
is a photoelectrochemical etching process for p-type
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007