Appeal No. 2000-2109
Application No. 09/159,609
claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 2, 4 through 6 and 9 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Husimi, Temple, Buti and Kim.
Next, we will address the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4
through 6, 8 and 9 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Meuleman, Temple and Buti. We note that claim 1 is the
independent claim with claims 2, 4 through 6, 8 and 9, dependent
on claim 1.
Appellants argue that Meuleman neither describes nor
suggests a )E detector portion in the form of first
semiconductor wafer and an E detector portion in the form of a
second semiconductor wafer. See page 11, lines 12-16 of the
Brief. Rather, "Meuleman describes a detector in the form of a
single wafer monolithic assembly." See page 11, lines 16 and 17
of the Brief. Appellants further argue that "the Meuleman device
is structured to overcome the need to bond the E and )E detector
portions together. Like Husimi, Meuleman provides a single
semiconductor wafer [and] Meuleman does not describe or suggest
in any manner the bonding together of two wafers." See page 11,
lines 22-26 of the Brief.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner states that "Meuleman
show[s] an E-dE detector using an epi layer junction on top of a
1010
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007