Appeal No. 96-4052
Application 08/198,511
a compound semiconductor and, therefore, that Forrest
encompasses photoelectrochemical etching of SiC.
It is true, as argued by appellants (Br5-6), that Chang
is directed to an electrolytic process, not a
photoelectrochemical process. Chang does not use light to
create charge holes in selected regions of the surface, as
claimed. However, Chang is applied only to show that it was
known to etch SiC, which fact does not appear to be in
question. Chang appears superfluous to the rejection. If
Forrest did not suggest applying the technique to all compound
semiconductors, then it would be difficult to find motivation
in Chang for using the process in Forrest.
Kohl is not needed for the rejection of claim 31;
therefore, appellants' arguments regarding Kohl (Br5) are not
persuasive. Kohl is used for its teaching of a mask in a
photoelectrochemical etching process, but a mask is not
recited in claim 31. Claim 31 recites "creating charge holes
in selected regions of said surface," but does not recite
using a mask to provide selected regions. Forrest discloses
using "lenses to collimate the light and concentrate the light
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007