Appeal No. 95-4761
Application No. 08/012,781
contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker,
702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
"Additionally, when determining obviousness, the claimed
invention should be considered as a whole; there is no legally
recognizable 'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg.,
Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37
USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct.
80 (1996) citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
We note at the outset that Appellants have not contested
the Examiner's position concerning the obviousness of
forming integrated circuit devices in the first layer of a
heteroepitaxial substrate. Rather, Appellants' arguments in
the Briefs center on the claimed size of the diameter of the
dislocation absorbing grid formed over the second substrate
layer. This particular size is recited as "on the order of 10
µm" in independent claims 14 and 17 and "being about 10
micrometers" in independent claim 19. The Soga and Luryi
references cited by the Examiner each disclose grid layers
formed on a silicon substrate having a grid diameter size of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007