Appeal No. 2006-1545
Application 10/254,326
The examiner states that "it is not necessary that a
monocrystalline device be formed since the benefits shown by
Shimogaki et al. only require the relative bandgaps" (EA6) and
there is no reason why heterojunction devices cannot be
polycrystalline (EA6, two places).
Appellant replies "that the Examiner is here suggesting that
it would have been obvious to take a single aspect of Shimogaki
et al. (that of using different semiconductor materials having
different band gap energies) in isolation from, and even in
contradiction of, all of the other teachings of Shimogaki et al.,
then apply such teaching to the array of Zhang" (RBr5). It is
argued that the teachings of the heterojunction art cited by
appellant attest to the importance of the use of monocrystalline
materials and lattice matching in conventional heterojunction
diodes and appellant has not been able to find any teaching that
the heterojunction diodes of Shimogaki could as easily be
polycrystalline as monocrystalline (RBr5-6).
Basically, the examiner has not produced any evidence of a
heterojunction PN device made from polycrystalline material that
could be substituted for the PN device in Zhang. Merely saying
that it would be obvious to substitute a heterojunction PN device
for the PN device in Zhang for the increased efficiency does not
show how such a device would be made. Since appellant does not
disclose how a heterojunction diode would be made using
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007