Appeal No. 2003-1852
Application No. 09/415,402
We affirm the rejection as to claims 34 through 36 and 48
through 50 but reverse as to claims 1, 4 through 6, 8 through
10, 14 through 16, 18 through 24, 38, and 40 through 42.1
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 14-16, 18-24, 38, and 40-42
The examiner states that Maeda teaches a method of growing
SiC and that “[v]apors of silicon and carbon are formed by
sublimation and heated to temperatures above 2,000º c."
(Answer, page 3.) The examiner then continues: “The vapors are
flowed towards a seed crystal and cause to decompose and deposit
SiC on the seed [sic], which is cooler then [sic] the vapors.
The silicon source is a silane gas note entire reference [sic].”
(Id.) While admitting that Maeda does not teach a SiC growth
system comprising a graphite that is coated with a material
having the properties recited in the appealed claims, the
examiner nevertheless alleges that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have combined the references to arrive at a method
encompassed by the appealed claims. (Id.) Specifically, it is
the examiner’s position that “[i]t would have been obvious to
1 The appellants submit that claims 34 through 36 and 48
through 50 should be considered together as a group.
(Supplemental appeal brief filed Dec. 19, 2002, paper 24, p. 5.)
While the appellants believe that claim 34 is representative of
this group, we select claim 48 from this group of rejected
claims and confine our discussion to this selected claim. 37
CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1995)(effective Apr. 21, 1995).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007