Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559
Cockrum teaches these limitations. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 33, 47 and dependent claims 34, 37, 39, 40, 48,
51, 53, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon Cockrum and Irvine for the
same reasons stated supra with to the examiner’s rejection of claims 33 and
47 based upon Cockrum in view of Mitra.
THE REJECTIONS OF CLAIMS 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 20, 21, 24, 26, AND 27
UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED UPON COCKRUM, ROSEBECK, AND IRVINE
The examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 20, 21, 24, 26, and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cockrum in view of Rosbeck and
Irvine.
Appellant’s arguments, on page 17 of the brief, group independent claim 6
with dependent claims 7, 10, 12 and 13. Appellant’s arguments on page 17 of
the brief are identical to those discussed above with respect to the rejection of
claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon Cockrum and Irvine. On page 18 of
the brief, appellant’s arguments group independent claim 20 with dependent
claim 21, 24, 26 and 27, and also present the same issues discussed above with
respect to the rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon Cockrum
and Irvine.
We are not convinced by appellant’s arguments. As discussed supra
claims 6 and 20 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
-17-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007