Appeal No. 2003-0136
Application 09/229,086
Appellants’ claim 1 requires that first thickness (B) is
twice as large or more than the diameter (C) of neck portion 5
See Figure 1. On pages 6-8 of the brief, appellants argue that
this aspect of their claimed invention is neither shown nor
suggested by Murai or Izumi.
Beginning on page 4 of the answer, the examiner rebuts and
states that Murai discloses the dimensions required by appellants
claims. The examiner refers to column 3, lines 55+ and column 4,
lines 1-32 of Murai, and refers to Figure 1 of Murai. On page 5
of the answer, the examiner specifically states that the
requirement of a first thickness as defined as being twice or
more as large as the neck portion is found in column 4, lines 20-
25 of Murai.1
We find, in column 4, beginning at line 19 of Murai, that
Murai discloses that the diameter of neck B can be adjusted in
the range of 0.09 to 0.9 times the sectional size of the seed
crystal 2, which is depicted as item A in Figure 1. See column
6, lines 6-11. Given the fact that appellants admit 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, we
also find that item A in Murai’s Figure 1 can be the diameter of
a first thickness as defined in appellants’ claim 1. Because
item A can be the claimed “first thickness”, we agree with the
examiner that column 4, lines 20-25 of Murai teaches a first
thickness (as defined in appellants’ claim) that is twice as
large or more as the diameter of B shown in Murai’s Figure 1.
1 Hence, it is disputed as to whether Murai teaches or suggests melting down a
part of the silicon seed crystal 2 from a tip end to a portion having a first
thickness, wherein the first thickness is twice as large or more than the
diameter of the neck (the diameter of the neck is depicted in appellants’
figure 1 as item C; the diameter of the neck is depicted in Murai’s figure 1
as item B).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007