Appeal No. 96-0175
Application 07/977,388
art processes taught in Chang et al. indeed produced the claimed doped bulk semiconductor material,
as the mere possibility or probability that such a result may be inherent in the processes of this
references is not sufficient. See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA
1981); Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1462-64 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990), and cases cited
therein; Ex parte Skinner, 2 USPQ2d 1788, 1788-89 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1986).
We must agree with appellant that the examiner has failed to identify any teaching or teachings
in Chang et al. which would provide a reasonable factual basis supporting his position. Indeed, the
examiner has not established by evidence and/or scientific reasoning that the claimed doped bulk
semiconductor material is made by the identical or substantially identical process employed by appellant
to obtain doped bulk semiconductor material falling within the appealed claims or why the process
disclosed in Chang et al. would have been reasonably expected to provide the claimed product.
Spada, supra; Best, 562 F.2d at 1255-56, 195 USPQ at 433-34; Levy, 17 USPQ2d at 1464;
Skinner, supra. We are of the opinion that the necessity for such evidence and scientific reasoning
with respect to process identity or identity of product from the Chang et al. process is manifested by the
disclosure in this reference that the data reported is based on “theoretical results from computer-aided
analysis of the interactions of natural convection and melt/solid interface shape in setting dopant
distributions in crystals grown in a vertical Bridgman system” (page 344) which “gives qualitative
understanding of fluid flow and dopant segregation in actual growth systems” that can serve as a basis
for further investigation (page 363).
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007