Appeal No. 1997-3388 Page 5
Application No. 08/060,767
We cannot subscribe to the examiner's position since the
examiner has not clearly explained how the teachings of G.B.
‘827 and Ayel are being combined so as to arrive at the
claimed invention. Indeed, the examiner offers no reasoning
as to how the references’ teachings are being combined.
Moreover, with regard to the proposed modification of the
apparatus of Ayel, the examiner has not sufficiently explained
how the short-circuit ring of Ayel is to be structurally
modified so as to result in a floating-zone apparatus
including a cylindrical susceptor as claimed. The explanation
of motivation offered in the answer by the examiner is not
persuasive since the nature of the proposed structural
modification of the structure of Ayel is not made clear by the
examiner and the examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in
Ayel which suggests that the short-circuit ring of Ayel could
or should function as a heating device (susceptor) for the
polycrystalline rod (element 1, Fig. 1) therein.
In light of the above, we cannot sustain the examiner's
§ 103 rejection based on this record.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007