Appeal No. 96-0175
Application 07/977,388
characteristics and demonstrates “an abrupt change from electrically conductive to electrically insulative
on opposing sides of an interface.” Although not reflected in any claim limitations, appellant does
disclose that the doped bulk semiconductor material with the required characteristics can be prepared
in a multi-zone furnace in a manner resulting in said material having “essentially two layers”
(specification, e.g., pages 5-6, 6-7 and 13-14).
The examiner finds that Chang et al. “teaches a bulk composite of a semiconductor material
with a varying shallow dopant profile . . . [that has] progressively increasing concentration from one
surface to another” and that “[t]his change inherently changes the electrical properties of the crystal
from conductive to resistive, note section 4.2” (answer, page 4; emphasis supplied). In response to
appellant’s contention that Chang et al. does not teach or suggest doped bulk semiconductor material
having the “structure” or “function” characteristics required by the claims (principal brief, pages 5-6),
the examiner states that Chang et al. does teach a doped bulk semiconductor material having “an abrupt
change of the concentration of the dopant across an interface in the crystal . . .[which] would inherently
change the electrical property from conductive to insulating on different sides” (answer, page 7). The
examiner relies on “section 4.2 and figure 9” of Chang et al as showing “an abrupt change” in the
“dopant profile across the crystal” at a “Rayleigh number (Ra) [of] 10 ” (answer, page 7). Appellant3
points out in his reply brief that the “claims do not require an abrupt change in the dopant concentration
across an interface or anywhere else” and that Chang et al. do not “mention that there is an abrupt
change from electrically insulating to electrically conducting across an interface” (pages 4-5).
The burden is upon the examiner to establish a reasonable factual basis to support his
contention that the doped bulk semiconductor materials of Chang et al. are identical to the doped bulk
semiconductor material of appealed claim 1 in order to make out a prima facie case of anticipation
under § 102, and to support his further contention that the claimed doped bulk semiconductor material
was prima facie obvious under § 103 over the teachings of the reference. See generally, In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252,
1254-56, 195 USPQ 430, 432-34 (CCPA 1977). In order to carry this burden in the case before us,
the examiner must provide in the record evidence and/or scientific reasoning establishing that the prior
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007