Appeal No. 97-0168
Application No. 08/348,991
even should not be included. As appellant argues, "because
the PN junction of the
embodiment shown in Figs. 1A and 1B is exposed to an edge of
the photo diode, such an electrode is not absolutely
necessary." Appellant refers to the extracting electrode as
"not a critical
component but is merely an additional component which may,
under certain circumstances be preferred." (main brief, page
14) Accordingly, the purpose for exposing the boundary between
the one collecting region and the absorption layer to an edge
surface of the device is not inconsistent with the drawings.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the new matter rejection.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 23, 25, 28, 30
through 34, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 46, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, is reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007