Appeal No. 2002-1981
Application No. 09/316,580
appellants have failed to present separate arguments in response
to the examiner's rejection of these claims.
2. Rejection of claims 10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph
Appellants do not appear to traverse this ground of
rejection. Rather, appellants note that they have previously
proposed amending claim 10 to reword line 11 to more clearly
describe the bonding of the silicide layer to the handle die and
device wafer. Appeal brief, page 6. Appellants also note that
their proposed amendment to claim 13 (paper no. 6, received March
13, 2000) to insert an open bracket which was previously
inadvertently admitted was not entered. Id.
As appellants have failed to traverse the merits of the
examiner's rejection, the rejection is affirmed.
3. Rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Moslehi in view of See
The examiner found that Moslehi discloses the structure as
claimed with the exception that Moslehi does not show transistors
formed on the Si substrate. Examiner's answer, page 10. The
examiner relies on See solely for a teaching of bipolar and MOS
transistors formed on an Si substrate. Id.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007