Appeal No. 2002-0974
Application 09/332,745
silicon wafers prepared by the Cz process, we find that the
references are not necessary to sustain the rejection before us
because appellants prepare their silicon wafers using the same
process as Asayama et al. use to prepare their wafers.
It is not entirely clear from appellants' arguments
concerning the alleged separate patentability of claim 28 what is
the limitation in claim 28 which renders it separately patentable
from appellants' other claims. It is not an adequate "argument"
to simply point out what the claim covers or how it differs from
the prior art. It is necessary to explain why the differences
between what is claimed and the prior art would not have been
obvious in the sense of § 103. Nevertheless, it appears that it
is the limitation concerning the thickness of the epitaxial layer
in claim 28 which appellants believe sets claim 28 apart from the
prior art. That is, claim 28 requires an epitaxial layer of at
least about 0.1 :m and less than 3 :m. But Asayama et al.
discloses depositing epitaxial layers "approximately 3 :m thick"
on their silicon wafers. See paragraph 18, last sentence. That
disclosure meets the limitation in claim 28 because
"approximately 3 :m" would have been understood to mean slightly
more than or slightly less than 3 :m. Also note that Inoue et
al. discloses depositing epitaxial layers of GaAs of from 1 to 2
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007