Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559
patterning being performed on that part of the doping layer, which is over the
passivation layer. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 6, 20 and dependent claims 8 through 13 and 22 through 27
for the reasons stated supra with respect to claim 47.
THE REJECTION OF CLAIMS 33, 34, 37, 39, 40, 47, 48, 51, 53 AND 54 UNDER
35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED UPON COCKRUM AND IRVINE
The examiner rejects claims 33, 34, 37, 39, 40, 47, 48, 51, 53 and 54
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cockrum in view of Irvine.
Appellant’s arguments, on page 15 of the brief, group independent claim
33 with dependent claims 34, 37, 39, and 40. Appellant argues on page 16 of
the brief:
As noted above, the only patterned doping layer . . . in any of the cited
references is layer 30 of Figure 4F of Cockrum, but no portion of this layer
is above passivation layer 18. Irvine merely shows a method of making a
layer having a selected band gap.
On page 16 appellant’s arguments group independent claim 47 with dependent
claim 48, 51, 53 and 54 and presents similar arguments.
We are not convinced by appellant’s arguments. As discussed supra,
claims 33 and 47 contain the limitations of “forming a doping layer above the
passivation layer,” “patterning the doping layer” and “driving dopant from the
patterned doping layer.” As stated supra, we do not find that these limitations
require the formed doping layer to only be over the passivation layer. As such,
claim is not limited to the step of patterning being performed on that part of the
doping layer, which is over the passivation layer. As stated supra, we find that
-16-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007