Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559
While we find the examiner’s reasoning intuitive, we do not find any
evidence in Cockrum that dopant layer 30 diffuses into the passivation layer 18.
Claim 41 contains the limitation “a doped region extending through the
passivation layer into the radiation absorption layer.” We consider this limitation
to include a doped region in both the passivation layer and the radiation
absorption layer. Figure 4G and the accompanying description in column 6 of
Cockrum teach that doped layer, layer 30, is diffused into region 14, extending
into the absorption layer 12. However, neither the figures nor the description
identify that the doped region extends through the passivation layer 18. Although
the hypothesis, that since the doped region 30 of figure 4F is diffused into
absorption layer 12, this doped region would also diffuse into the abutting layer
18 seems logical, we find no evidence in Cockrum that support the hypothesis.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 41 and
dependent claims 42 and 44 through 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 RELYING UPON COCKRUM
IN VIEW OF ROSBECK
The examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, 15 and 17 through 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cockrum in view of Rosbeck.
Appellant’s arguments group independent claim 1, with dependent claims
2, 4 and 5 on page 10 of the brief. Appellant argues on page 10 of the brief:
As noted above with regard to claim 28, Cockrum does not show or
suggest, “forming a patterned doping layer above the passivation layer”…. It
does not show or suggest “forming a patterned doping layer” at all.
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007