Appeal No. 1997-1006
Application 08/184,718
a Talystep surface profiler and an AFM. The polished
CVD-deposited SiC material in the Bennett article is the same
as the material in Pickering. Both Pickering and Bennett
measure RMS values. Thus, the results in Bennett should apply
to Pickering. Bennett shows that a CVD-deposited sample 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.
The 8.5 Å value is greater than the values claimed. Thus,
Appellants have demonstrated that a roughness of 1 Å RMS or
less as measured on a Talystep mechanical contact profiler
does not fall within the 4 Å or less limitations of the
claims.
Pickering discloses that the substrate is polished "by
conventional means" (col. 6, line 10). Therefore, there can
be no speculation that the polished surface in Pickering is
somehow smoother than that in Bennett.
Pickering discloses that surface irregularities tend to
be imparted to subsequent layers in exaggerated form. Absent
additional evidence, we cannot tell whether the subsequent
coating processes in Pickering smooths over the scratches from
the polishing process which result in the measurement
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007