Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559
On pages 13 and 14 of the brief appellant argues that claim 16 is
dependent upon claim 14, and is allowable for the reasons discussed with
respect to claim 14.
We concur with appellant. As discussed supra, we do not find that
Cockrum teaches the claim 14 limitation of “a doped region extending through
the passivation layer into the wider bandgap layer and the radiation absorption
layer.” Nor do we find that the combination of Rosbeck and Mitra teach or
suggest this limitation. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claim 16.
Appellant’s arguments, on page 14 of the brief, group independent claim 6
with dependent claims 8 through 13. Appellant argues on page 14 of the brief
“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 6.” Appellant’s arguments, on page 15 of the brief, group independent
claim 20 with dependent claims 22 through 27, and present essentially the same
argument presented with respect to claim 6.
We disagree with appellant’s arguments. Claim 6 contains the limitations
of “forming a doping layer above the passivation layer,” “patterning the doping
layer” and “driving dopant from the patterned doping layer.” Claim 20 also
contains these limitations. We consider these limitations to be virtually identical in
scope to the limitations of claim 47 discussed above. As stated supra, we
do not find that these limitations require the formed doping layer to only be over
the passivation layer, as such claims 6 and 20 are not limited to the step of
-15-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007