Appeal No. 2003-0136
Application 09/229,086
Furthermore, we note that where general conditions of the
appealed claims are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation, and appellants have the burden of proving any
criticality. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 218-
19 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
(CCPA 1955). Here, Murai teaches a method of growing silicon
crystals that is substantially similar to appellants’ claimed
method, and any optimization of respective diameters of a first
thickness and a neck portion found in Murai is deemed obvious,
absent evidence of criticality. See also In re Best, 562 F.2d
1252, 1255 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
We also have reviewed both the appellants’ and the
examiner’s comments on Izumi. We find ourselves in agreement
with the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to
modify the method of Murai by utilizing a conical seed (a “sharp
tip end” as recited in appellants’ claim 1) in view of Izumi’s
teachings that the use of a conical seed helps prevent thermal
shock during pulling of a single crystal, and we refer to page 4
of the answer in this regard. Appellants argue that the
combination of Murai in view of Isumi is improper, inter alia,
because Izumi does not perform a necking operation. However,
Izumi’s method does apply to a method of pulling a single
crystal, which is the method that occurs in Murai, and therefore
we determine that the combination is proper in this regard.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007