Appeal No. 2000-2109
Application No. 09/159,609
Examiner states that "Applicant states that Temple et al. do not
show the formation of a dE-E detector, which is true but note
that Temple et al. are relied upon to show wafer bonding." See
page 6, lines 7 and 8 of the Answer.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Further, our reviewing court in In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999-00, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999) has said,
Broad conclusory statements regarding the teaching of
multiple references, standing alone, are not
'evidence.' E.g., McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light
Co., 995 F.2d 1576, 1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) ("Mere denials and conclusory statements,
however, are not sufficient to establish a genuine
issue of material fact."); In re Sichert, 566 F.2d
1154, 1164, 196 USPQ 209, 217 (CCPA 1977).
We note that the Appellants' claim 1 recites the following:
a )E-E detector telescope is fabricated by wafer
bonding a )E detector portion in the form of a first
semiconductor wafer to an E detector portion in the
form of a second semiconductor wafer by silicidizing a
thin metal layer . . . . (Emphasis added).
In understanding these claim limitations, we find that
Appellants' claim calls for two distinct wafers that are bonded
via silicidizing a thin metal layer so as to form the )E-E
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007