Appeal No. 2001-1193
Application No. 08/463,761
anywhere on any surface, however, the mechanics and
enablement of such structures is not obvious. Further-
more the elementary structure shown by Eigler is not a
functioning pn junction device. Hashizume et al in
Applied Surface Science ‘92, Jeon et al Physical Review
letters ‘92, Aruga et al ‘84, and Hashizume et al ‘91,
all of record, show atomically manipulated alkali metal
atoms on a surface of silicon. These structures also
are not functional pn junction devices, but merely lines
of alkai atoms on a silicon surface. Hashizume ‘96, of
record, shows a line of Ga metal atoms on a substrate
of hydrogen passivated silicon, but again, this is no
functioning pn junction device, and at most is merely
a line or “wire” of metal gallium atoms.
In summation, there is no enablement for a
functioning pn junction device. Appellant’s disclosure
is at best a hypothetical description of atomically
manipulating several species of atoms in precise spatial
relationship to form hypothetical pn junction devices.
There is no proof that appellant had in his possession
the manufacturing capability of making these atomic pn
junction structures, nor is there any proof that
appellant has actually made these devices, such as
electron micrographs of finished devices and Current
vs. Voltage measurements proving pn junction behavior.
Appellants cite (brief at page 15) In re Chilowsky, 229
F.2d 457, 462, 108 USPQ 321, 325 (CCPA 1956) and quote that
“the mere fact that something is (sic, has) not previously
been done clearly is not, in itself, sufficient basis for
rejecting all applications supporting to disclose how to do
it.” Appellants have also filed four declarations by Dr.
Tomihiro Hashizume (Paper No. 5, filed on May 9, 1996, Paper
No. 14, filed on September 5, 1997, Paper No. 20, filed on
August 4, 1998, and Paper No. 26, filed on February 9, 1999)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007