Ex Parte Mitra

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 4, 2005

09976559 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 4, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication and
is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte PRADIP MITRA
_____________

Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559
______________

ON BRIEF
_______________

Before THOMAS, KRASS, and NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the

examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 54. For the reasons stated infra we
affirm-in-part the examiner’s rejection of these claims.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to a method for forming a radiation detector on a
substrate.
Claims 1 and 6 are representative of the invention.
1. A method for forming a radiation detector, comprising
the steps of:
Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

-2-
forming a radiation absorption layer above a substrate;

forming a wider bandgap layer above the radiation
absorption layer;

forming a passivation layer above the wider bandgap layer;

forming a patterned doping layer above the passivation
layer;
driving dopant from the patterned doping layer into the wider
bandgap layer and the radiation absorption layer to form a doped
region; and

forming an electrical contact to the doped region.

6. A method for forming a radiation detector, comprising
the steps of:

forming a radiation absorption layer above a substrate;

forming a wider bandgap layer above the radiation
absorption layer;

forming a passivation layer above the wider bandgap layer;

forming a doping layer above the passivation layer;

wherein the absorption layer, the wider bandgap layer and
the passivation layer are formed in situ by alternating layers of a
first material and a second material, the composition of the
absorption layer, the wider bandgap layer and the passivation layer
being determined by the relative thickness of the layers of the first
and second materials and, after deposition of the layers of first and
second materials, annealing the first and second materials to
produce an alloy of the first and second materials;

patterning the doping layer;

driving dopant from the patterned doping layer into the wider
bandgap layer and the radiation absorption layer to form a doped
region;

patterning the passivation layer to expose the doped region;
and
forming an electrical contact to the doped region.
Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

-3-

THE REFERENCES

The references relied upon by the examiner are:

Mitra 5,998,235 Dec. 7, 1999
Rosbeck et al. (Rosbeck) 5,466,953 Nov. 14, 1995
Cockrum et al. (Cockrum) 4,956,304 Sep. 11, 1990
Irvine et al. (Irvine) 4,566,918 Jan. 28, 1986

THE REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 28, 29, 31, 32, 41, 42, and 44 through 46 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Cockrum.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, 15, and 17 through 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cockrum in view of Rosbeck.
Claims 30, 33, 35 through 40, 43, 47, and 49 through 54 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cockrum in view of Mitra.
Claims 3, 6, 8 through 13, 16, 20, and 22 through 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cockrum in view of Rosbeck and
Mitra.
Claims 33, 34, 37, 39, 40, 47, 48, 51, 53, and 54 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cockrum in view of Irvine.
Claims 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 20, 21, 24, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cockrum in view of Rosbeck and Irvine.
Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

-4-
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness
relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of
the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellant and examiner, for the
reasons stated infra, 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 REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102 OVER COCKRUM
We first consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 28, 29, 31, 32, 41, 42
and 44 through 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Anticipation is established only when
a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing
structure which is capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir.) , cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore & Assocs. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

-5-
On page 8 of the brief, appellant groups claims 28, 29, 31 and 32, and
provides arguments as to why independent claim 28 is not anticipated by
Cockrum. Appellant argues that claim 28 recites forming a patterned doping
layer above the passivation layer and that Cockrum does not teach this limitation.
Appellant argues, on pages 8 and 9 of the brief:
In Figure 4E of Cockrum, the doping source layer 30 is not patterned. In
figure 4F, the doped layer 30 has been patterned by a “lift off” process due
to the removal of mask layer 26. However, this lift off process removes all
of those portions of source layer 30 that are above the passivation layer
18. Before this lift off patterning, source layer 30 is not patterned. After
this step, no part of source layer 30 remains above passivation layer 18.

In response the examiner states, on pages 9 and 10 of the answer:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pattern is defined as “to furnish, adorn,
or mark with a design.” [Examiner cites Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary 10th edition for definition.] It should be noted that independent
claim 28 does not require any specific design of the doping layer. Thus a
doping layer of any design formed above the passivation layer would
anticipate this element recited in independent claim 28.

In the Reply Brief, on page 2, appellant takes exception to the examiner’s
interpretation of the term pattern and argues that the examiner’s definition is
inconsistent with the interpretation of the term that would be understood by those
skilled in the art. Appellant argues, on page 3 of the Reply Brief:
In the present case, several of the pending claims recite “forming a
patterned doping layer” (claims 1, 28) or “patterning the doping layer”
(claims 6, 20, 33, 47). The specification clearly uses the term “patterning”
to mean a material removal process. For example, in a disclosed
embodiment “patterning” is equated to “etching”:

After formation of layers 14, 16, 18, 20 and 21, doping layer
21 is patterned to provide doped mesa 23 as shown in Figure 5. P-
doped layer 21 is etched using a photolithography formed mask
(not shown) and known wet etching techniques. The mask is then
Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

-6-
removed and resulting structure of Figure 5 is then annealed. [citing
paragraph 23 of appellant’s specification].

Such patterning of a layer can be clearly be seen by comparing the views
provided by Figures 4 and 5. The patterning causes a portion of the layer
21 in Figure 4 to be removed, resulting in the mesa 23 shown in Figure 5.
Thus, the term “pattern” and its alternative forms “patterning” and
“patterned”, when considered in the context of the specification, clearly
refer to selective material removal. In the claims, therefore, a “patterned”
layer is one in which at least some portion of the layer has been removed
and “patterning” a layer refers to removal of at least some portion of the
layer.

Appellant concludes (id.) “those skilled in the semiconductor art readily
understand that ‘patterning’ means a material-removal process is being
performed, for example involving masking and selective removal or some
material.”
We concur with the examiner’s interpretation. In analyzing the scope of
the claim, office personnel must rely on appellants’ disclosure to properly
determine the meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v. Westview
Instruments, Inc., 52 F3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
“[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be confused with
adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.”
(Emphasis original) In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348, 64
USPQ2d 1202, 1205, (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Intervet Am. Inc v. Kee-Vet Labs.,
Inc. , 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claim 28 contains the limitation “forming a patterned doping layer above
the passivation layer.” It is readily apparent that the term “patterned” in this
limitation is describing the doping layer as having a pattern. We do not consider
Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

-7-
that this term “patterned” implies the process by which the patterned doping layer
is created. We do not consider the paragraph 23 of appellant’s specification to
provide a special definition of the term “patterned.” Rather, we consider the first
sentence of paragraph 23 “doping layer 21 is patterned to provide doped mesa
23” to be a description of the pattern in the doping layer, and the second
sentence to provide a description of how the pattern is created. We consider
appellant’s asserted definition, that patterning requires a removal process, to be
an attempt to import an extraneous limitation from the specification into the claim.
Accordingly, we consider the scope of claim 28’s limitation of “forming a
patterned doping layer above the passivation layer” to include a doping layer
above the passivation layer which has a pattern, design, we do not consider the
claim to be limited to how the design is produced in the doping layer.
Having determined the scope of the claim, we consider the relevant
teachings of the applied reference, Cockrum. Appellant, on page 8 of the brief,
does not argue that that Cockrum does not teach a doping layer above the
passivation layer, rather that after the doping layer is patterned, by the step of
lifting off the mask 26 (the transition from Cockrum’s figures 4E to 4F), the doping
layer no longer above the passivation layer 18. We disagree with appellant’s
arguments as it relies on appellant’s asserted definition of patterning requiring a
step of removal. We consider the doping layer shown in Cockrum’s figure 4E to
be a patterned doping layer, (layer 30), in that it has a design, having peaks and
troths, the peaks being over the passivation layer (layer 18). One could describe
the sections of the doping layer, which are over the passivation layer (layer 18)
Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

-8-
as mesas. Further, even if we were to consider “patterning” to require removal of
material, which we do not, the claim does not identify what material is removed
and during what stage of manufacture. Thus, the pattern is created by material
removal, the removal of sections of the passivation layer (the transition from
figures 4C to 4D), which provides the troths that produce the pattern in doping
layer 30. For the forgoing reasons we sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 28 and dependent claims 29, 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. §
102.
We next consider independent claim 41. Initially, we note that appellant’s
arguments, on pages 9 and 10 of the brief, group dependent claims 42 and 44
through 46 with independent claim 41. Appellant argues:
[N]either Cockrum nor Rosbeck[1] show or suggest, “forming a patterned
doping layer above the passivation layer.” Because the source layer 30 of
Cockrum is not above the passivation layer 18 and is in direct contact with
the p-type layer 12, no “a doped region extending through the passivation
layer into the radiation absorption layer” is formed. Therefore, Cockrum
does not show or suggest . . . every limitation of claim 41.

In response the examiner states, on page 10 of the answer:
Cockrum et al. expressly teach thermal diffusion from a patterned source
layer 30 formed above the passivation layer 18 in order to form discrete n-
type regions with the resultant p-n junctions underlie the passivation layer
18 …. A thermal diffusion from a patterned source layer 30 into Hg1-x
CdxZnTe would drive dopant from the patterned source layer 30 into both
the Hg1-xCdxZnTe radiation absorption layer (12) and the Hg1-xCdxZnTe
passivation layer (18). Thus, Cockrum et al. disclose a doped region
extending through the passivation layer into the radiation absorption layer.

1 We note that neither claim 41 nor any of the claims dependent upon claim
41 are rejected over Rosbeck alone or in combination.
Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

-9-
While we find the examiner’s reasoning intuitive, we do not find any
evidence in Cockrum that dopant layer 30 diffuses into the passivation layer 18.
Claim 41 contains the limitation “a doped region extending through the
passivation layer into the radiation absorption layer.” We consider this limitation
to include a doped region in both the passivation layer and the radiation
absorption layer. Figure 4G and the accompanying description in column 6 of
Cockrum teach that doped layer, layer 30, is diffused into region 14, extending
into the absorption layer 12. However, neither the figures nor the description
identify that the doped region extends through the passivation layer 18. Although
the hypothesis, that since the doped region 30 of figure 4F is diffused into
absorption layer 12, this doped region would also diffuse into the abutting layer
18 seems logical, we find no evidence in Cockrum that support the hypothesis.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 41 and
dependent claims 42 and 44 through 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 RELYING UPON COCKRUM
IN VIEW OF ROSBECK
The examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, 15 and 17 through 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cockrum in view of Rosbeck.
Appellant’s arguments group independent claim 1, with dependent claims
2, 4 and 5 on page 10 of the brief. Appellant argues on page 10 of the brief:
As noted above with regard to claim 28, Cockrum does not show or
suggest, “forming a patterned doping layer above the passivation layer”…. It
does not show or suggest “forming a patterned doping layer” at all.

Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

-10-
We disagree with appellant’s arguments. Claim 1 contains the limitation
“forming a patterned doping layer above the passivation layer.” This limitation is
virtually identical to the “forming a patterned doping layer” of claim 28, and we
consider it to have virtually identical scope. As discussed supra, we find that
Cockrum does teach forming a patterned doping layer as claimed in claim 28.
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and
dependent claims 2, 4 and 5 for the same reasons stated supra with respect to
claim 28.
We next consider the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14 and
dependent claims 15, 17 through 19. Appellant argues, on page 11 of the brief:
. . . [N]either Cockrum nor Rosbeck show or suggest “forming a patterned
doping layer above the passivation layer.” Because the source layer 30 of
Cockrum is not above the passivation layer 18 and is in direct contact with
the p-type layer 12, no “doped region extending through the passivation
layer into the wider bandgap layer and the radiation absorption layer” is
formed.

We concur with appellant. Independent claim 14 includes the limitation “a
doped region extending through the passivation layer into the wider bandgap
layer and the radiation absorption layer.” We find that the scope of this limitation
includes that the doped region exists in the passivation layer, the wider bandgap
layer and the radiation absorption layer. As stated supra with respect to claim
41, we do not find evidence in Cockrum that supports the examiner’s hypothesis
that the doped region 30 of Cockrum diffuses into the passivation layer 18.
Similarly, we do not find that Rosbeck teaches this limitation or provides
Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

-11-
evidence to support the examiner’s hypothesis. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14 or dependent claims 15, 17
through 19.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 RELYING UPON COCKRUM
IN VIEW OF MITRA
The examiner has rejected claims 30, 33, 35 through 40, 43, 47, and 49
through 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cockrum in view
of Mitra.
Appellant argues on page 11 of the brief:
Claim 30 is dependent upon claim 28 and thus includes every
limitation of claim 28. As noted above, the Cockrum reference does not
show or suggest, “forming a patterned doping layer above the passivation
layer.” Mitra merely shows a process for making a layer having a precise
band gap. Thus, Mitra also does not show or suggest “forming a
patterned doping layer above the passivation layer” and does not suggest
this step when combined with the Cockrum reference.

We disagree, as stated supra we find that Cockrum does teach claim 28’s
limitation of forming a patterned doping layer. Accordingly, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 30 for the reasons stated supra with respect to
claim 28.
Appellant’s arguments, on page 12 of the brief, group independent claim
33 with dependent claims 35 through 40. Appellant argues:
As noted above with regard to claim 30, the cited references do not
show or suggest “forming a patterned doping layer above the passivation
layer.” Thus, the combined references do not show or suggest every
limitation of claim 33.

Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

-12-
The examiner responds, on page 12 of the answer that the examiner is
not convinced by appellant’s arguments for the reasons discussed above.
We concur with the examiner. Claim 33 contains limitations of “forming a
doping layer above the passivation layer” and “patterning the doping layer.” For
the reasons discussed supra, with respect to claim 28, we consider the step of
patterning the doping layer to be a step where a design is made in the doping
layer. For the reasons stated supra with respect to claim 28 we find that
Cockrum teaches these features. Additionally, we note: claim 33 does not
require the formed doping layer to only be over the passivation layer. As such,
claim 33 is not limited to the step of patterning being performed on that part of
the doping layer which is over the passivation layer. Appellant’s discussion of
Cockrum, on page 7 of the brief, states:
A doping source layer 30 is then formed on the surface of the patterned
structure with the mask layer 26 in place. The mask layer 26 is then
removed. This step patterns doping source layer 30 and removes the
portion of layer 30 above passivation layer.

Thus, by appellant’s description of the Cockrum reference, Cockrum teaches the
claim limitation of forming a doping source layer 30, part of the doping layer
being above the passivation layer, and then pattering the doping layer. For all of
the forgoing reasons, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claim
33 and dependent claims 35 through 40.
We next consider the rejection of claim 43. On page 12 of the brief
appellant argues that claim 43 is dependent upon claim 41 and the rejection of
claim 43 is improper for the same reasons.
Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

-13-
We concur. As stated supra we do not find that Cockrum teaches the
claim 41 limitation “a doped region extending through the passivation layer into
the radiation absorption layer.” The examiner has not asserted, nor do we find,
that Mitra teaches this limitation. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 43.
Appellant’s arguments, on page 12 of the brief, group independent claim
47 with dependent claims 49 through 54. Appellant argues, on page 13 of the
brief:
As noted above with regard to claim 43, the cited references do not
show or suggest forming a patterned doping layer above the passivation
layer.[2] As noted above, the only patterned doping layer in any of these
references is layer 30 of Figure 4F of Cockrum, but no portion of this layer
is above passivation layer 18. Thus, the cited references, singularly or in
combination, do not suggest “driving dopant from the patterned doping
layer” that is “above the passivation layer” as provided in claim 47.

We disagree with appellant. Claim 47 includes the limitations of “forming a
doping layer above the passivation layer,” “patterning the doping layer,” and
“driving dopant from the patterned doping layer into the radiation absorption layer
to form a doped region.” We do not find a limitation in claim 47 which requires
the formed doping layer to only be over the passivation layer. As such, claim 47
is not limited to the step of patterning being performed on that part of the doping
layer which is over the passivation. As discussed supra with respect to claims 28
and 33, Cockrum teaches forming a doping layer 30 over passivation layer 18.

2 Appellant’s arguments directed to claim 43 do not argue that the references do
not show forming a pattern doping layer. Rather, appellant’s argument regarding
claim 43 discusses the limitation, “a doped region extending through the
Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

-14-
As discussed supra with respect to claims 28 and 33, there are several aspects
of Cockrum, which can be considered to meet the limitation of patterning.
Further, as discussed with respect to claim 41, we find that Cockrum teaches in
Figure 4G and the accompanying description in column 6 teach that the doped
layer 30, is diffused into region 14, extending into the absorption layer 12.
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 47 and
dependent claims 49 through 54.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 RELYING UPON COCKRUM IN
VIEW OF ROSBECK AND MITRA
The examiner rejects claims 3, 6, 8 through 13, 16, 20 and 22 through 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cockrum in view of Rosbeck
and Mitra.
On page 13 of the brief appellant argues that claim 3 is dependent upon
claim 1, and thus includes the limitation of “forming a patterned doping layer
above the passivation layer.” Appellant argues that the three references do not
teach this limitation.
We are not convinced by appellant’s arguments. As stated supra, with
respect to claim 1, we find that Cockrum teaches the limitation of “forming a
patterned doping layer above the passivation layer.” Accordingly, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 3.

passivation layer into the radiation absorption layer,” which is not present in claim
47.
Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

-15-
On pages 13 and 14 of the brief appellant argues that claim 16 is
dependent upon claim 14, and is allowable for the reasons discussed with
respect to claim 14.
We concur with appellant. As discussed supra, we do not find that
Cockrum teaches the claim 14 limitation of “a doped region extending through
the passivation layer into the wider bandgap layer and the radiation absorption
layer.” Nor do we find that the combination of Rosbeck and Mitra teach or
suggest this limitation. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claim 16.
Appellant’s arguments, on page 14 of the brief, group independent claim 6
with dependent claims 8 through 13. Appellant argues on page 14 of the brief
“the cited references, singularly or in combination, do not suggest ‘driving dopant
from the patterned doping layer’ that is ‘above the passivation layer’ as provided
in claim 6.” Appellant’s arguments, on page 15 of the brief, group independent
claim 20 with dependent claims 22 through 27, and present essentially the same
argument presented with respect to claim 6.
We disagree with appellant’s arguments. Claim 6 contains the limitations
of “forming a doping layer above the passivation layer,” “patterning the doping
layer” and “driving dopant from the patterned doping layer.” Claim 20 also
contains these limitations. We consider these limitations to be virtually identical in
scope to the limitations of claim 47 discussed above. As stated supra, we
do not find that these limitations require the formed doping layer to only be over
the passivation layer, as such claims 6 and 20 are not limited to the step of
Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

-16-
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
Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

-17-
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
Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

-18-
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.
Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

-19-
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a) (1) (iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROBERT E. NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )

REN/hh

Appeal No. 2005-2533
Application No. 09/976,559

20

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. WALTON, P.L.L.C
1169 N. BURLESON BLVD.
STE. 107-328
BURLESON, TX 76028