Appeal No. 2000-2109
Application No. 09/159,609
wafer to a second semiconductor wafer by silicidizing a thin
metal layer therebetween to provide a )E-E semiconductor
detector telescope." See page 8, lines 24-28 and page 9, lines
3-6 of the Brief.
For the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner states that,
Husimi et al. show an E-dE detector with an epi layer
for the dE detector (see Figure 2(a)[)] and show that
the dE detector layer is less than 10 microns (column
1, line 14). Temple et al. show that to avoid the
expense of growing an epi layer it is cost effective to
bond a second wafer to the first using silicide (column
1, line 9). Buti et al. show that when two wafers are
bonded together, one wafer may be thinned to reach a
given thickness (Figure 1F and column 4, line 24). It
would have been obvious to modify the Husimi et al.
device to use a second wafer as taught by Temple et al.
and to thin the second wafer to the necessary thickness
as taught by Buti et al. (Emphasis added). See page
3, line 14 to page 4, line 2 of the Answer.
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner states that
"Applicant states that Husimi et al. do not show siliciding,
which is true, but Husimi et al. is not relied upon to teach
this." See page 5, lines 12-13 of the Answer. The Examiner
continues by stating that, "Husimi et al. addresses the
technology of 1980 and the more modern reference of Temple et al.
teaches that it is cost effective to use wafer bonding rather
than epitaxial growth and Temple et al. addresses the technology
of 1994." See page 6, lines 2-4 of the Answer. Finally, the
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007