Ex parte PLUMTON et al. - Page 5

              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                       


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007