Appeal No. 94-3365
Application 07/759,571
The examiner has also rejected claims 7 and 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined disclosures of Mao and
Maeguchi. Claim 7 is dependent on independent claim 1. Claim 8
is dependent on claim 7 which depends on claim 1. In other
words, dependent claims 7 and 8 embrace all of the limitations
recited in independent claim 1, requiring, inter alia,
transformation of a monocrystalline silicon surface layer
covering a buried amorphous layer into a mixed-crystal or a
crystalline chemical compound. The examiner, however, failed to
discuss or explain how the Mao and the Maeguchi references would
have rendered this step obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. We cannot find any teaching or suggestion in these
references regarding the transformation of the monocrystalline
silicon surface layer covering the buried amorphous layer into
the mixed crystal or the crystalline chemical compound.
Accordingly, we reverse this rejection as well.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007