Appeal No. 2002-1981
Application No. 09/316,580
agreement with the examiner’s findings that the specification
does not support the claimed structures.
The rejection is affirmed.
Claim 19
Claim 19 requires that the first and second bonding
materials each comprise a thin layer of polysilicon, the
polysilicon being substantially consumed during bonding. We are
in agreement with the examiner's position that this claim
language is not supported by the specification for the same
reasons discussed above in connection with claim 10.
The rejection is affirmed.
Claim 22
In support of their position that claim 22 is supported by
the specification, appellants reference page 10, lines 28-32, of
the specification which indicates that the metal of any of the
three disclosed embodiments may be replaced with a silicide.
However, we are in agreement with the examiner that the
specification only supports the third bonding material as being
directed to the oxidizer 505.
The rejection is affirmed.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as to
the remaining claims 14, 16, 18, 20 and 21 is also affirmed as
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007