Appeal No. 2006-2104
Application No. 10/655,904
which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
briefs have not been considered (37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 9-13,
Appellant argues that operating a sensor in the narrow portion of
the infrared range below 10 micrometer, as recited in claim 1 is
an unexpected result (brief, page 8). Appellant further
distinguishes the acoustic absorption of the claimed subject
matter over the impurity absorption of the conventional devices
by stating that it was not previously known that SiC can be made
to exhibit acoustic absorption for infrared wavelengths less than
10 micrometers (id.).
The Examiner responds by stating that the infrared
absorption described in Ichikawa is not limited to wavelengths
above 10 micrometer since it relates to “infrared” radiation
which includes the full spectrum range (answer, page 5). The
Examiner further argues that the claims are not limited to
absorption of only the wavelength that are less than 10
micrometers (id.) and may include other wavelengths too (answer,
page 6).
Before addressing the Examiner’s position and Appellant’s
rebuttal, it is an essential prerequisite that the claimed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007