Appeal No. 1996-0073
Application 08/278,688
A significant aspect of the instant appeal is the difference in certain
characteristics that exists between conventional single crystal
(monocrystalline) diamond and polycrystalline diamond (PCD) film.
It is appellants' position that it is well known in the art that PCD film
differs radically in some important aspects from monocrystalline diamond.
One very important difference is the difference in the workability of the two
forms of diamond.
In support thereof, appellants rely on an article by Willem van Enckevort entitled
"Diamonds Polished by Solid State Diffusion" appearing in Physics World, pp. 22-23
(August 1992) (copy attached to appellants' Brief) which recognizes that single-crystal
diamond can be polished along the "softer" crystallographic planes and directions but
notes that polycrystalline diamond (PCD) can be abraded only very slowly by conventional
means due to a random orientation of crystallites.
Appellants also rely on an affidavit of Dr. Sungho Jin, a co-inventor of the
application involved in this appeal, dated January 11, 1993. According to Dr. Jin (p. 2):
It is well known among those skilled in materials science that
polycrystalline materials frequently are subject to
a) preferential chemical attack at their grain boundaries; and
b) preferential impurity in-diffusion at their grain boundaries.
. . . . Preferential impurity in-diffusion at grain boundaries would in
general be expected to have a negative impact on the thermal conductivity of
PCD film, one of the material properties of PCD film of prime technological
interest.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007