Appeal No. 1997-1006
Application 08/184,718
cited in Pickering (col. 4, lines 25-27), to show that a
silicon carbide sample (the material in Pickering) had a
roughness of 0.77 Å when measured by a Talystep surface
profiler and a roughness of 8.5 Å when measured by an AFM.
Thus, Appellants conclude that Pickering's roughness of about
1 Å RMS or less translates to an actual roughness of about
11 Å or less.
The Examiner responds that the fact that the measuring
device cannot measure a certain roughness is not conclusive
proof that Pickering does not describe a disk polished to 1 Å
RMS or less (EA5-7).
The Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of anticipation. The 4 Å value in claim 13 must refer to the
value as measured by the most accurate measurement device, an
AFM. Pickering discloses that "surfaces measured to be 1 Å
RMS on a Talystep mechanical contact profiler would measure
lower on a Zygo heterodyne profiler and larger on an atomic
force microscope" (col. 4, lines 21-24). Thus, Pickering
recognizes that the actual roughness measured by an atomic
force microscope will be greater than 1 Å RMS. The Bennett
article compares roughnesses of polished CVD-deposited SiC for
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007