Appeal No. 97-1387
Application No. 08/251,011
Therefore, we find appellants’ second argument to be
unpersuasive.
Turning to the third argument, we, again, agree with the
examiner. The term “substantially crystalline” is overly
broad. Perhaps appellants intended to use the term
“substantially monocrystalline.” As claimed, and argued,
however, it would appear to us that whether a material was
monocrystalline or polycrystalline, it would still be
“substantially crystalline.” Accordingly, for appellants to
argue that claim 1 requires that the first and second
semiconductor material substrates used in forming the FETs are
“substantially crystalline” while the transistors in Hayashi’s
Figure 5 are formed in a “polycrystalline substrate” is not
persuasive since the “polycrystalline substrate” of Hayashi
is, indeed, “substantially crystalline.” The polycrystalline
substrate of Hayashi may not be monocrystalline but it is
clearly “substantially crystalline,” as claimed. If there is
a convention in the art or a definition in the instant
disclosure which equates “crystalline” with “monocrystalline,”
appellants have not alluded to any evidence which would
indicate this to be the case and we are unaware of any such
convention or definition.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007