Appeal No. 1996-3121
Application No. 08/115,783
Appealed claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Yamazaki, Seitz,
and Sakamoto. This claim requires that the CVD method is
effected using a carbon filament containing at least 99.9% of
12C or C. Thus, this claim implicitedly is limited to a hot13
filament CVD technique (specification, page 3, line 1 and
examples 13 and 14 at pages 22-24 of the specification) as
contrasted to a microwave enhanced CVD technique as disclosed
in Yamazaki. Since the microwave enhanced CVD technique
utilizes an IR heater, not a carbon filament, there is no
logical basis to support the argument that it would have been
obvious to modify the Yamazaki CVD apparatus in the manner
proposed by the examiner. Moreover, we find no disclosure in
Sakamoto that the graphite utilized in this prior art
vaporization process is either in the form of a filament or is
as isotopically pure as required by the language of appealed
claim 8. Thus, the obviousness rejection of appealed claim 8
fails for lack of an adequate factual basis.
In summary, the examiner’s rejection of appealed claims
14 and 15 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is
reversed. The examiner’s rejection of appealed claims 1, 3, 6,
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007