Appeal No. 2003-1852
Application No. 09/415,402
Like Maeda, Balakrishna and Sugiyama are of no help to the
examiner. Balakrishna and Sugiyama both teach the use of
silicon reactant, not silane. (Balakrishna, page 2, line 31 to
page 3, line 8; Sugiyama, column 1, lines 6-8.)
Because the examiner’s proposed combination of references
does not result in a method encompassed by the appealed claims,
the rejection fails. It is clear, therefore, that the examiner
has not carried the initial burden of establishing a prima facie
case of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 34-36 and 48-50
Regarding the limitation “a graphite core from which a
coating of a secondary material has been removed” in appealed
claim 48, the specification explains that the coating may be
removed “through use.” (Page 12, line 26 to page 13, line 2.)
Balakrishna describes a SiC crystal growth system
comprising a furnace system 30 (i.e., a container for receiving
a SiC seed crystal), a source of Si 36, and a source of carbon-
containing gas delivered through conduit 66. (Figure 2; page 5,
line 3 to page 8, line 18.) According to Balakrishna, the
device “includes a porous graphite wall 54 surrounded by
graphite susceptor 56 and defining an interior growth cavity
58.” (Page 5, lines 27-30.) In addition, Balakrishna teaches
that “[i]n order to reduce the radial migration of potential
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007