Appeal No. 2004-0078
Application No. 09/920,420
the examiner has not established any reasonable belief that the
claimed structure would be the same or substantially similar to
that of Rosbeck. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ
430, 433 (CCPA 1977). As correctly argued by appellant (Brief,
pages 4-5; Reply Brief, pages 1-2), the cap layer 16 of Rosbeck is
clearly a layer having the same dopant type and concentration as
the base layer 14 (see Figure 2) and does not disclose or suggest a
“second plurality of diffusions” as required by claim 1 on appeal.1
Although the “second plurality of diffusions” are doped with the
first dopant type, as is the substrate, the resulting structure is
not the same as the cap layer 16 of Rosbeck since the “plurality of
diffusions” provides an increase in concentration of the dopant at
each diffusion site, with a field gradient established at some area
from the diffusion dot (see Figures 12-14 and the specification,
pages 39-41). See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(In proceedings before the PTO, claims in an
application are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification). Accordingly,
the concentration of the “second plurality of diffusions” would not
1The examiner applies Kataoka for the teaching of arraying
the detectors in parallel connection while the detectors have
multilayers (Answer, page 3). However, Kataoka does not remedy
the deficiency in Rosbeck discussed above.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007