Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559
evidence to support the examiner’s hypothesis. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14 or dependent claims 15, 17
through 19.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 RELYING UPON COCKRUM
IN VIEW OF MITRA
The examiner has rejected claims 30, 33, 35 through 40, 43, 47, and 49
through 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cockrum in view
of Mitra.
Appellant argues on page 11 of the brief:
Claim 30 is dependent upon claim 28 and thus includes every
limitation of claim 28. As noted above, the Cockrum reference does not
show or suggest, “forming a patterned doping layer above the passivation
layer.” Mitra merely shows a process for making a layer having a precise
band gap. Thus, Mitra also does not show or suggest “forming a
patterned doping layer above the passivation layer” and does not suggest
this step when combined with the Cockrum reference.
We disagree, as stated supra we find that Cockrum does teach claim 28’s
limitation of forming a patterned doping layer. Accordingly, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 30 for the reasons stated supra with respect to
claim 28.
Appellant’s arguments, on page 12 of the brief, group independent claim
33 with dependent claims 35 through 40. Appellant argues:
As noted above with regard to claim 30, the cited references do not
show or suggest “forming a patterned doping layer above the passivation
layer.” Thus, the combined references do not show or suggest every
limitation of claim 33.
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007