Appeal No. 1998-1660
Application No. 08/108,499
does not add any support for the Examiner’s unfounded
conclusion that Ghandhi’s crystal growing process will
inherently produce a GaAs crystal with a particular lattice
constant distribution which would satisfy the inequality
relationship as recited in the claims on appeal. Therefore,
since all of the limitations of the appealed claims are not
taught or suggested by the prior art, the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly,
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 11-14 is
not sustained.
With respect to dependent claim 15 which is limited to a
particular wafer diameter dimension of “at least 5 cm”, the
Examiner has added Clarke to the basic combination of Ghandhi
and Sze. It is apparent, however, from page 7 of the Answer,
that the Examiner has relied on Clarke for the limited
teaching of disclosing the availability of 2 to 3 inch
diameter (i.e. “at least 5cm”) wafers. We find nothing,
however, in the disclosure of Clarke which overcome the
deficiencies of Ghandhi or Sze discussed supra. Therefore,
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 15 is
not sustained.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007