Appeal No. 96-0176
Application 08/012,556
1. A method for heteroepitaxial growth, said method comprising the steps of:
(a) cutting and polishing a single crystal ceramic substrate at from about 1 to about 10 degrees
off axis to produce a substantially flat surface;
(b) redistribution atoms on said surface to produce surface steps of at least three lattice
spacings; and
(c) then growing a layer of semiconductor over said substrate.
The appealed claims as represented by claim 1 are drawn to a method for heteroepitaxial2
growth comprising at least the steps of preparing an off-axis single crystal ceramic substrate having a
substantially flat surface, redistributing atoms on said surface to produce surface steps of at least three
lattice spacings, and growing a layer of semiconductor over said surface. In the method of claim 28,
the step of redistributing atoms produces surface steps of at least three lattice spacings which are
parallel to at least two crystallographic directions. According to appellant, these methods minimize the
effect of crystallographic misfits (specification, e.g., pages 1 and 5).
The references relied on by the examiner are:
H.S. Kong, J.T. Glass and R.F. Davis (Kong), AChemical vapor deposition and characterization of
6H-SiC thin films on off-axis 6H-SiC substrates,@ 64 Journal of Applied Physics, no. 5, 2672-2679
(September 1988).
Kazumasa Hiramatsu, Hiroshi Amano, Isamu Akasaki, Hisaki Kato, Norikatsu Koide and Katsuhide
Manabe (Hiramatsu), AMOVPE growth of GaN on a misoriented sapphire substrate,@ 107 Journal of
Crystal Growth 509-512 (1991).
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1, 3, 7, 9 and 28 through 31 under 35 U.S.C. '
102(b) as being anticipated by Kong. The examiner has further rejected appealed claims 1 through 12,
14 and 28 through 31 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as being unpatentable over as being unpatentable over
Hiramatsu in view of the admission of prior art at page 17, line 23, to page 18, line 13 of the
specification. 3
2Appellant states in the brief (page 3) that the appealed claims Ado not stand or fall together@ and
separately argues claims 1 and 28, as to both grounds of rejection based on prior art, as well as claims
3, 7 and 29 through 31, with respect to the ground of rejection based on Kong. Thus, we decide this
appeal based on appealed claims 1, 3, 7 and 28 through 31. 37 CFR ' 1.192(c)(5) and (6)(1993).
3The cite to page 17, line 23, refers to the specification as it stood prior to the amendment of page 17,
line 12, in amendment of March 13, 1995 (Paper No. 10).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007