Appeal No. 2004-0078
Application No. 09/920,420
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Rosbeck in view of Kataoka (Answer, page 3).
We reverse the rejection on appeal essentially for the reasons
stated in the Brief, Reply Brief and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Rosbeck discloses an array of
photovoltaic detectors with a p-region 14, a n-region 18 and
grooves within p-region 16 (Answer, page 3). The examiner states
that the claims are drawn to a “device” and thus the method of
producing the doping of the structure that is formed carries “no
weight” (Answer, page 4). The examiner further states that
appellant describes the doping method as diffusion while “Rosbeck,
apparently, forms the doping by growing the layers with a dopant
included.” Id. The examiner thus finds that Rosbeck provides a
first plurality of regions of a first dopant type and a second
plurality of regions of a second dopant type “which is exactly what
is claimed.” Id. We disagree.
The examiner interprets the claims as “reading” on the cap
layer 16 of Rosbeck, construing the claims as only requiring a
substrate with p- and n-regions that are separated (see the Answer,
page 4, and the final rejection of Paper No. 7, page 3). However,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007