Appeal No. 1997-3487 Page 7
Application No. 08/473,420
Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990); Ex parte Skinner, 2 USPQ2d
1788, 1789 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1986).
In the present case, the examiner states that the process of making the GaAs crystal is the
same. The appellant, however, points out that the references do not employ the same growth process
as appellant (Reply Brief, page 2). Comparing the processes of the references and that described in
the specification we note several differences. For instance, McNeely uses a quartz crucible whereas
the specification describes the use of a graphite crucible with a soft compliant carbon cloth with low
levels of impurities covering the bottom of the crucible. The examiner has offered no explanation with
respect to the affect of using a quartz crucible on impurity level nor the affect of the other process
differences, on the resulting product. We, therefore, conclude that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to claims 7-12.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007