Appeal No. 1998-2962
Application No. 08/485,079
Appellants argue only that since Lüth uses a vapor phase growth of the
semiconductor materials and Rode uses a liquid phase growth, the references cannot be
combined. However, it appears that Rode, alone, would have suggested the claimed
subject matter and appellants do not even address the merits of the Rode disclosure of the
claimed range of orientation. Moreover, while appellants argue that one would not
combine a “vapor phase growth” reference with a “liquid phase growth” reference,
appellants do not explain why such teachings are not combinable or why an artisan would
not find anything in a vapor phase growth environment applicable to anything in a liquid
phase growth environment.
Even assuming, arguendo, that one would not “combine” the references, appellants
have not explained why the artisan viewing the range of orientation taught by Rode would
not have been led to employ such an angle in Lüth.
Thus, we will sustain the rejection of claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lüth
and Rode because, in our view, the examiner makes out a prima facie case of
obviousness which has not been successfully rebutted by any argument of appellants.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
Miyazawa and Rode. We will not sustain this rejection because, as appellants argue at
page 3 of the brief, Miyazawa fails to show the extrinsic base fingers with sidewalls
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007