Appeal No. 94-3737
Application 07/796,932
Company is employed by the prior art for synthesizing diamonds
from, as a starting material, a non-diamondaceous form of
elemental carbon. According to appellant, this commercial method
employs ultra high temperature and ultra high pressure.
Appellant states at page 4 of the specification that an essential
aspect of the present invention is that the disassociation of the
silicon carbide is performed in the absence of other sources of
non-diamondaceous elemental carbon, which distinguishes
appellant’s process dramatically from those in which a source of
non-diamondaceous form of elemental carbon is essential to the
process. We are told that the General Electric process and
another patented process require both silicon carbide and a
fluorocarbon, whereas still another patented process employs
amorphous carbon in combination with silicon carbide. According
to page 5 of the specification, “[t]he process of this invention
is conducted at a temperature/pressure relationship below that
required to convert non-diamondaceous elemental carbon, i.e.,
amorphous carbon or graphite, to the diamond form.”
Appealed claims 1-20 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as being based upon a specification that
is objected to by the examiner. Appealed claims 1-20 also stand
finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second
paragraphs. In addition, claims 1-4 and 14-16 stand finally
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007