Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559
We concur. As stated supra we do not find that Cockrum teaches the
claim 41 limitation “a doped region extending through the passivation layer into
the radiation absorption layer.” The examiner has not asserted, nor do we find,
that Mitra teaches this limitation. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 43.
Appellant’s arguments, on page 12 of the brief, group independent claim
47 with dependent claims 49 through 54. Appellant argues, on page 13 of the
brief:
As noted above with regard to claim 43, the cited references do not
show or suggest forming a patterned doping layer above the passivation
layer.[2] As noted above, the only patterned doping layer in any of these
references is layer 30 of Figure 4F of Cockrum, but no portion of this layer
is above passivation layer 18. Thus, the cited references, singularly or in
combination, do not suggest “driving dopant from the patterned doping
layer” that is “above the passivation layer” as provided in claim 47.
We disagree with appellant. Claim 47 includes the limitations of “forming a
doping layer above the passivation layer,” “patterning the doping layer,” and
“driving dopant from the patterned doping layer into the radiation absorption layer
to form a doped region.” We do not find a limitation in claim 47 which requires
the formed doping layer to only be over the passivation layer. As such, claim 47
is not limited to the step of patterning being performed on that part of the doping
layer which is over the passivation. As discussed supra with respect to claims 28
and 33, Cockrum teaches forming a doping layer 30 over passivation layer 18.
2 Appellant’s arguments directed to claim 43 do not argue that the references do
not show forming a pattern doping layer. Rather, appellant’s argument regarding
claim 43 discusses the limitation, “a doped region extending through the
-13-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007