Appeal No. 2001-1193
Application No. 08/463,761
showing the actual photographs and the measurements of a
device made using the Appellants’ disclosure in an effort to
prove that such a device was indeed enabled to an artisan,
the declarant being such a person.
In response to the argument based on In re Chilowsky,
the Examiner asserts (answer at page 7) that “this is not the
case with atomic fine line pn junction devices which have not
yet been built and demonstrated to work as pn junction
devices.” Furthermore, the Examiner has presented his
analysis of the declarations at pages 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the
Examiner’s answer and concludes (answer at page 10):
the declarant’s assertions that the claimed devices
will indeed operate as pn junction devices is again
not proven and accordingly not persuasive. Appellant’s
arguments that metals can operate like bulk semi-
conductors devices in accordance with the teachings
of the application are also not probative of pn
junction diode behavior. Where are the convincing
current vs voltage measurements? Band diagrams are
not probative.
Appellants respond to the Examiner’s objections
regarding the four declarations at pages 3-7 of the reply
brief. Appellants contend that, in the declarant’s
laboratory test device, a gallium fine line would work as a
pn junction device in accordance with Appellants’ disclosure,
notwithstanding the fact that only a single metal, gallium,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007