Appeal No. 2001-0726
Application 09/272,969
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner’s finding of anticipation is briefly stated
on page 3 of the examiner’s answer. Appellant argues that the
layer 14 of the Chinen phototransistor is not an integral part of
the substrate 6 of the Chinen device, but is disposed on
substrate 6 after the substrate has been back-etched. Appellant
also argues that layer 14 in Chinen is not decoupled from the
substrate 6 as claimed. Appellant argues that Chinen does not
disclose the differently doped regions which are electrically
decoupled from one another as claimed [brief, pages 9-12].
The examiner responds that although the structure of
Chinen is made by a different process from the claimed invention,
the resulting structures are the same. The examiner also notes
that the doped regions of Chinen are electrically decoupled to
the same extent that the regions in the claimed invention are
decoupled [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellant responds that the phototransistor of Chinen is
not electrically decoupled from the laser whereas the receiver of
the claimed invention is electrically decoupled from the
transmitter. Appellant notes that the claimed invention always
has one of the two diodes in a blocking direction so that layer 3
is electrically decoupled from layer 4. Appellant also notes
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007