Appeal No. 1997-2859
Application 08/340,676
weather (column 1, lines 28 to 36). Thus, we sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 18 over Hilton.
Regarding claim 20, we have reviewed the positions of
Appellants [brief, page 9] and the Examiner [final rejection,
page 3] and find that Hilton, contrary to Appellants' views,
contemplates the removal of the protective silicon layer by
etching and refilling the "etched channels" with epitaxially
grown material, see Col. 3, Lines 41-52, albeit for a
different purpose. However, the purpose for such removal is
not material to the teaching of removal of the protective
layer, per se. This, combined with an expected economic need
for the removal of a protective layer rather than the whole
window, lends support to the examiner's rejection. Therefore,
we affirm the anticipation rejection of claim 20 over Hilton.
As to claim 22, Appellants have not presented any
substantial arguments. Still, we agree with the Examiner
[final rejection, page 3] that Hilton has used silicon and
gallium arsenide as the suitable materials in its IR device
because of their hydrophilic nature, and thus Hilton meets
claim 22.
Regarding claim 24, Appellants present the same arguments
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007