Appeal No. 2000-2109
Application No. 09/159,609
sufficiently for the carrier wafer 12 to provide the necessary
mechanical support. . .". (Emphasis added). See column 2, line
66 to column 3, line 1 of Temple. Furthermore, we find that
Temple discloses, "[a]s shown in FIG. 3, it may be desirable to
bond the carrier wafer to the device wafer over most, if not all,
of the wafers and to eliminate the separation step." See column
3, lines 56-58 of Temple. However, we fail to finding any
teaching or suggestion for bonding two wafers in a )E-E detector
by silicidizing a thin metal layer. This limitation is critical
as explained in Appellants' disclosure of the )E-E detector
wherein,
a thin buried metallic layer in the semiconductor gives
a small series resistance, therefore a small RC
constant and fast charge carrier collection.
Furthermore, the low resistivity in the buried metallic
layer ensure minimal signal cross-talk between the two
detectors due to charge carrier funneling. . . . See
page 5, lines 28-32 of Appellants' specification.
Lastly, we find nothing in Buti that teaches or suggests bonding
two semiconductor wafers by silicidizing a thin metal layer.
In providing motivation or a suggestion to combine, we find
that our reviewing court states in In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
1342-43, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2002),
[t]he essential factual evidence on the issue of
obviousness is set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966) and
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007