Appeal No. 2000-2109
Application No. 09/159,609
junction and the above arguments can be repeated with Meuleman
replacing Husimi et al." See page 4, lines 16-18 of the Answer.
In responding to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner then states
that "Applicant states that Meuleman does not show a two wafer
structure, which is true, but note that Meuleman is combined with
other references to show that the claimed device is obvious."
See page 6, lines 13-15 of the Answer.
Upon careful review of Meuleman, we find that Meuleman
discloses an E-dE detector wherein the "starting element is
chosen [with] a wafer of 500 microns thickness . . .". See
column 3, lines 74-75 of Meuleman. Further, a "monolithic
assembly has been obtained by first providing the junction J1' in
a semiconductor wafer by known diffusion methods." See column 3,
lines 56-59 of Meuleman. Lastly, we find that "[t]he diffused
zone B thus provided is strongly doped . . .". See column 4,
lines 21-22 of Meuleman. However, as with Husimi, we find
nothing in the Meuleman reference that teaches two semiconductor
wafers and hence we find no teaching of bonding two wafers by
silicidizing a thin metal layer therebetween. Therefore, we will
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Meuleman, Temple and
Buti. Claims 2, 4 through 6, 8 and 9 are dependent on claim 1,
1111
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007