Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559
The examiner responds, on page 12 of the answer that the examiner is
not convinced by appellant’s arguments for the reasons discussed above.
We concur with the examiner. Claim 33 contains limitations of “forming a
doping layer above the passivation layer” and “patterning the doping layer.” For
the reasons discussed supra, with respect to claim 28, we consider the step of
patterning the doping layer to be a step where a design is made in the doping
layer. For the reasons stated supra with respect to claim 28 we find that
Cockrum teaches these features. Additionally, we note: claim 33 does not
require the formed doping layer to only be over the passivation layer. As such,
claim 33 is not limited to the step of patterning being performed on that part of
the doping layer which is over the passivation layer. Appellant’s discussion of
Cockrum, on page 7 of the brief, states:
A doping source layer 30 is then formed on the surface of the patterned
structure with the mask layer 26 in place. The mask layer 26 is then
removed. This step patterns doping source layer 30 and removes the
portion of layer 30 above passivation layer.
Thus, by appellant’s description of the Cockrum reference, Cockrum teaches the
claim limitation of forming a doping source layer 30, part of the doping layer
being above the passivation layer, and then pattering the doping layer. For all of
the forgoing reasons, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claim
33 and dependent claims 35 through 40.
We next consider the rejection of claim 43. On page 12 of the brief
appellant argues that claim 43 is dependent upon claim 41 and the rejection of
claim 43 is improper for the same reasons.
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007