Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559
We disagree with appellant’s arguments. Claim 1 contains the limitation
“forming a patterned doping layer above the passivation layer.” This limitation is
virtually identical to the “forming a patterned doping layer” of claim 28, and we
consider it to have virtually identical scope. As discussed supra, we find that
Cockrum does teach forming a patterned doping layer as claimed in claim 28.
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and
dependent claims 2, 4 and 5 for the same reasons stated supra with respect to
claim 28.
We next consider the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14 and
dependent claims 15, 17 through 19. Appellant argues, on page 11 of the brief:
. . . [N]either Cockrum nor Rosbeck show or suggest “forming a patterned
doping layer above the passivation layer.” Because the source layer 30 of
Cockrum is not above the passivation layer 18 and is in direct contact with
the p-type layer 12, no “doped region extending through the passivation
layer into the wider bandgap layer and the radiation absorption layer” is
formed.
We concur with appellant. Independent claim 14 includes the limitation “a
doped region extending through the passivation layer into the wider bandgap
layer and the radiation absorption layer.” We find that the scope of this limitation
includes that the doped region exists in the passivation layer, the wider bandgap
layer and the radiation absorption layer. As stated supra with respect to claim
41, we do not find evidence in Cockrum that supports the examiner’s hypothesis
that the doped region 30 of Cockrum diffuses into the passivation layer 18.
Similarly, we do not find that Rosbeck teaches this limitation or provides
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007