Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559
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
Cockrum teaches these limitations. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 6, 20, and dependent claims 7, 10, 12, 13, 20,
21, 24, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon Cockrum, Rosbeck, 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.
CONCLUSION
Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been considered
in this decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the brief or by filing a reply brief have not been considered and are
deemed waived by appellant (see 37 CFR § 41.37). Support for this rule has
been demonstrated by our reviewing court in In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984, 61
USPQ2d 1523, 1528-29 (Fed. Cir. 2002) wherein the Federal Circuit stated that
because the appellant did not contest the merits of the rejections in his brief to
the Federal Circuit, the issue is waived. See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362,
1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In view of the forgoing, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 13 and 20 through 40 and 47 through 54. We reverse the examiner’s
rejection of claims 14 through 19 and 41 through 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The
decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
-18-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007