Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559
As discussed supra with respect to claims 28 and 33, there are several aspects
of Cockrum, which can be considered to meet the limitation of patterning.
Further, as discussed with respect to claim 41, we find that Cockrum teaches in
Figure 4G and the accompanying description in column 6 teach that the doped
layer 30, is diffused into region 14, extending into the absorption layer 12.
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 47 and
dependent claims 49 through 54.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 RELYING UPON COCKRUM IN
VIEW OF ROSBECK AND MITRA
The examiner rejects claims 3, 6, 8 through 13, 16, 20 and 22 through 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cockrum in view of Rosbeck
and Mitra.
On page 13 of the brief appellant argues that claim 3 is dependent upon
claim 1, and thus includes the limitation of “forming a patterned doping layer
above the passivation layer.” Appellant argues that the three references do not
teach this limitation.
We are not convinced by appellant’s arguments. As stated supra, with
respect to claim 1, we find that Cockrum teaches the limitation of “forming a
patterned doping layer above the passivation layer.” Accordingly, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
passivation layer into the radiation absorption layer,” which is not present in claim
47.
-14-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007