Appeal No. 1997-0988
Application No. 08/199,910
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims and the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the
new matter rejection of claims 26 through 31, 33, 34, 36
through 44, 46, 47 and 52.
The examiner's position is that "[t]he original
disclosure here said absolutely nothing about the
'resistivity' of the 'substrate'" (Answer, page 3). We agree
that there is no explicit statement that the substrate "has a
resistivity less than 10 ohm-cm." However, we disagree with3
the examiner that the addition of the substrate's resistivity
is new matter.
In the specification (page 4, lines 29-30), "semi-
insulating" is defined as having a resistivity of at least 103
ohm-cm. One can infer that semiconducting therefore must
equate to having a resistivity less than 10 ohm-cm.3
Therefore, appellants clearly have support for the specific
range of less than 10 ohm-cm for the resistivity of a3
semiconducting element.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007