Appeal No. 2003-0136
Application 09/229,086
subsequently the monocrystal ingot is pulled with increasing a
diameter.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Murai et al. (Murai) 5,501,172 Mar. 26, 1996
Izumi 5,932,002 Aug. 3, 1999
Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Murai in view of Izumi.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the brief, reply brief, and the
answer, and the evidence of record. For the reasons set forth in
the answer, and below, we affirm the rejection.
Figure 1 of appellants’ specification is illustrative of the
subject matter set forth in appellants’ claim 1. Item B in
Figure 1 of appellants’ specification indicates the location of
the tip end of seed crystal 3 after melting, and is recited as a
“first thickness” in claim 1. See page 11 at lines 17-18 of
appellants’ specification.
Appellants state on page 6 of the brief that the size of the
diameter defined by first thickness B (the tip end of the seed
crystal after melting) is not necessarily equivalent to the
diameter A of the cylindrical portion of seed crystal 3.
Appellants state that the only time first thickness B equals the
size of diameter A is “when the entire tip end portion of the
seed crystal is melted down” (brief, page 6).
Hence, appellants admit that that the size of the diameter
defined by first thickness B can be the same as diameter A of the
cylindrical portion of seed crystal 3 of appellants’ Figure 1.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007