Appeal No. 2000-2109
Application No. 09/159,609
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8 through
10, 12 through 14 and 16 through 20 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
First we will address the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4
through 6 and 9 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Husimi, Temple and Buti. We note that claim 1 is the independent
claim with claims 2, 4 through 6 and 9, dependent on claim 1.
Appellants argue that "[i]ndependent claim 1 calls for the
first and second semiconductor wafers to be bonded together by
'silicidizing a thin metal layer' therebetween." (Emphasis
added). See page 5, lines 25-27 of the Brief. Appellants
further argue that,
Husimi's device provides a completely distinct
structure. In particular, rather than a thin metal
layer which bonds together and serves to electrically
isolate two distinct semiconductor wafers, Husimi
provides a single semiconductor wafer having an N+
layer buried therein which isolates the dE detector
from the E detector. (Emphasis added). See page 5,
lines 29-34 of the Brief.
Appellants then argue that neither the Temple nor the Buti
references describes or suggests "bonding a first semiconductor
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007