Appeal No. 1997-3388 Page 4
Application No. 08/060,767
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we concur with appellants that the
examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the
claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection.
The examiner explicitly acknowledges that G.B. ‘827 does
not disclose the claimed cylindrical susceptor in combination
with the recited float-zone apparatus (answer, page 3).
Additionally, the examiner suggests that the short-circuit
ring apparatus of Ayel would have to be modified to correspond
to the claimed cylindrical susceptor (answer, page 3).
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the short-circuit ring
apparatus of Ayel to correspond to the claimed cylindrical
susceptor. The examiner reasons “[t]he motivation being that
the short-circuit ring (4) could function as susceptor (9) of
the instant claims, which would help the uniform effectiveness
of the heating coil’s preheating of the free end of the
silicon element” (sentence bridging pages 3 and 4 of the
answer) (emphasis in original).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007