Appeal No. 1997-3696 Page 4
Application No. 08/473,419
in view of Naumann and Bult. Claims 66-68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Miyazaki.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections of claims 61-64 and 66-68 and affirm the rejection of claim 65. In
addition, we enter a new ground of rejection with respect to claims 66-68.
Rejection of Claims 61-64 over Miyazaki in View of Matsuo
Claim 61 is directed to a method of forming a compound semiconductor material. A flexible
compliant carbon cloth is placed on the bottom of a vessel and the compound semiconductor is formed
on the cloth and then removed from the vessel and cloth. The cloth contains substantially no
contaminants adverse to the formation of the compound semiconductor material.
Miyazaki describes a crucible used in a process of forming a semiconductor single crystal. The
crucible is formed by roughening the surface of a quartz boat by, for instance, sand-blasting and then
coating the roughened surface with carbon by, for instance, thermal deposition of hydrocarbons
(translation, page 4, lines 5-9 and page 5, lines 2-19). The examiner has recognized that Miyazaki
does not describe a flexible compliant carbon cloth on the bottom of the crucible and therefore the
examiner looks to Matsuo to fill this gap. The examiner states that Matsuo teaches a graphite liner
which is flexible and conforms to the crystal growth crucible and concludes that “[i]t would have been
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007