Appeal No. 1998-1660
Application No. 08/108,499
fundamentally different, the Examiner’s conclusion that
Ghandhi’s process will produce a crystal which satisfies the
claimed relationships can only be based on unfounded
speculation. Accordingly, since all of the claimed
limitations are not disclosed by Ghandhi, or inherent therein,
the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of
independent claims 11 and 12, as well as claims 13 and 14
dependent thereon, is not sustained.
Turning to the Examiner’s separate rejection of claims
11-14 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
combination of Ghandhi and Sze, we do not sustain this
rejection as well. As the basis for this rejection, the
teachings of Sze, which provide a chart linking resistivity to
impurity concentration, have been added to Ghandhi to buttress
the Examiner’s assertion of the inherency of Ghandhi’s
disclosed crystal growing process in producing a GaAs crystal
as claimed.
We agree with Appellants, however, that the teachings of
Sze do not cure the deficiencies of Ghandhi for all of the
reasons discussed supra. In our view, the limited showing of
a resistivity-impurity concentration link provided by Sze,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007