Appeal No. 2006-2104
Application No. 10/655,904
at least 200 micrometers thickness as the way to achieve such
results (specification, page 4, lines 8-12). However, as argued
by the Examiner, the claimed arrangement still absorbs other
wavelengths or other thicknesses would absorb the smaller
wavelengths. We find this position to be consistent with
Appellant’s own disclosure (page 4, lines 12-14) which states:
While there may be some acoustic absorption with thinner
samples, the amount is so small that it has not previously
been observed.
Therefore, the acoustic absorption, as well as impurity
absorption, appear to be generally present in SiC bodies whereas
the strength of the response in SiC to such absorption may vary
depending on the physical attributes of the SiC body.
Description of crystal structure and the thickness as the
parameters affecting the range of absorbed wavelength in the
specification notwithstanding, the claims are merely limited to
“a body of SiC” having a specific range of thickness.
Therefore, the alleged distinctions made by Appellant with
respect to unexpected results, appear to be based on either the
single crystal structure or other microscopic properties of SiC,
which are not recited in the claims, or on selecting a particular
thickness which apparently Appellant argues to have not been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. We also note that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007