Appeal No. 1999-2580 Page 5
Application No. 08/753,598
heteroepitaxial quantum dots with a thickness larger than the height of the quantum
dots” [reply brief-page 1] and that Solomon does not teach that the islands are
compressed when the GaAs spacer layer is deposited.
The examiner contends that an InAs dot would shrink when covered by an
overgrown intermediate layer, and appellants do not dispute the truth of this allegation
but appellants contend that it is they who discovered this phenomenon and that “such a
shrinkage of a quantum dot has not been a common knowledge to a person skilled in
the art, even if the argument of lattice misfit presented by the Examiner is taken into
consideration” [reply brief-page 2].
Appellants take issue with the examiner’s finding of obviousness because
appellants take the position that nothing in Solomon and/or Xie would have led the
artisan to reduce the thickness of the intermediate layer below the height of the freely
grown quantum dots, “as such would be expected to cause various problems such as
the quantum dots projecting beyond the intermediate layer and producing a rough
undulated surface in the intermediate layer” [principal brief-page 5]. Thus, appellants
argue that the instant invention is the result of an “unexpected result” which lies in the
discovery that the freely grown quantum dots cause a deformation when covered by an
intermediate layer having a thickness smaller than the height of the freely grown
quantum dots. Appellants state that the claimed property of each of the intermediate
layers having a thickness smaller than a height of the quantum dots in a freely grown
state is not an inherent property due to the strained relationship noted by the examiner.
We have carefully reviewed the Solomon reference and, while it does teach
many of the claimed elements, such as a vertically coupled quantum dot structure with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007