Appeal No. 1997-3696 Page 8
Application No. 08/473,419
processes do result in differences in the crystals obtained. We therefore conclude that a prima facie
case of anticipation over Miyazaki has not been established.
New Ground of Rejection
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the following new ground of
rejection:
Claims 66-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by McNeely.
McNeely describes GaAs crystalline materials which have resistivities and electron mobilities
within the claimed ranges. For instance, example 7 describes a slice of GaAs having a resistivity of
2.60 ohm-cm and an electron mobility of about 6150 cm /volt-second. These values are squarely2
within the claimed resistivity range of about 0.7 to about 10 ohm-cm and electron mobility range of
greater than 3000 cm /volt-second. The dies of GaAs described in Examples 8 and 9 also have2
resistivity and electron mobility levels within the claimed ranges. See also, Table I which lists
resistivities and electron mobilities along a GaAs ingot. All the resistivity and electron mobility values
from a position 11 cm to a position 30.1 cm along the ingot are within the claimed ranges. The GaAs
crystalline material at these positions, therefore, is of the claimed composition. See also Table III,
positions 10.4 to 17.4 cm, Table IV, positions 20.5 to 25.3; Table V, position 19.0 to 30.0 cm; and
Table VI, positions 6.0, 16.0, and 26.0 cm. All these ingots contain positions at which the GaAs has
the resistivities and electron mobilities required by the claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007