Appeal No. 1997-1249
Application 08/179,601
as Figure 1), Danos is not “coextensive” with the layers
because region C is reserved for an integrated circuit with a
buffer and amplifier (column 2, lines 62-64). An alternate
arrangement of Figure 3 places the integrated circuit in a
separate chip 18, off the detector region. Thus, in Figure 3
of Danos, the layers are “coextensive” (column 3, lines 34+).
However, Danos also lacks the claimed limitation of making the
p and n layers (or metal layers 5) thinner than the i layer.
Since there is no evidence in the record that the prior
art suggested the desirability of a radiation detector with a
p-i-n structure and the p and n layers “having a thickness
that is small relative to said selected thickness of said
intrinsic layer” as claimed in both independent claims 28 and
31, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims.
The remaining claims on appeal also contain the above
limitations discussed in regard to claims 28 and 31 and
thereby, we will not sustain the rejection as to these
claims.2
We note that claims 2 and 3 recite “said at least one absorption member(s)”, and claim 42
(continued...)
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007