Appeal No. 2003-1852
Application No. 09/415,402
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Maeda []
reference by the teachings of the Sugiyama [] and Balakrishna []
references to use of [sic] protective material in order to lower
the chance of impurities in the grown crystals.” (Id.)
We disagree. Appealed claim 1 and the other independent
method claims, including claim 12 which is not rejected,
recite, inter alia, the use of a silane and carbon source gas to
form vaporized species containing carbon and silicon, which are
then subjected to conditions suitable for crystal growth on the
seed crystal. As pointed out by the appellants (supplemental
appeal brief, page 6; reply brief filed May 12, 2003, paper 27,
pages 1-3), none of the applied prior art references provide any
teaching or suggestion of this claim limitation.
While the examiner argues that Maeda discloses that the
silicon source is a silane gas (answer, page 3), we note that
Maeda provides no indication that vaporized species containing
carbon and silicon are formed by reacting silane and carbon
source gas. Instead, Maeda (page 2, line 40 to page 3, line 5)
teaches the formation of solid-phase SiC from the gaseous
reactants in an apparatus quite unlike the one recited in the
appealed claims.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007