Appeal No. 1998-1660 Application No. 08/108,499 fundamentally different, the Examiner’s conclusion that Ghandhi’s process will produce a crystal which satisfies the claimed relationships can only be based on unfounded speculation. Accordingly, since all of the claimed limitations are not disclosed by Ghandhi, or inherent therein, the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of independent claims 11 and 12, as well as claims 13 and 14 dependent thereon, is not sustained. Turning to the Examiner’s separate rejection of claims 11-14 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Ghandhi and Sze, we do not sustain this rejection as well. As the basis for this rejection, the teachings of Sze, which provide a chart linking resistivity to impurity concentration, have been added to Ghandhi to buttress the Examiner’s assertion of the inherency of Ghandhi’s disclosed crystal growing process in producing a GaAs crystal as claimed. We agree with Appellants, however, that the teachings of Sze do not cure the deficiencies of Ghandhi for all of the reasons discussed supra. In our view, the limited showing of a resistivity-impurity concentration link provided by Sze, 10Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007