Appeal No. 2003-1852
Application No. 09/415,402
impurities into the growth cavity from the wall 54 or susceptor
56, a protective coating 60, of a high purity material such as
silicon carbide or tantalum carbide, may be incorporated.”
(Page 5, lines 30-35.) Because tantalum carbide is described in
the present specification as “exhibit[ing] the desired
characteristics of the required coating” (specification, page 9,
lines 17-26), we determine that Balakrishna describes each and
every limitation of appealed claim 48.2
The appellants argue that Balakrishna does not suggest the
recited thermal coefficient of expansion relationship between
the graphite core and tantalum carbide. (Appeal brief filed
Feb. 13, 2002, paper 19, page 11.) According to the appellants
(id.), this is significant because “[g]raphite is a commercial
material that may be ordered with specific coefficients of
thermal expansion.” This argument lacks discernible merit,
because the appellants have failed to identify the evidentiary
basis in the record to support the allegation that graphite can
have specific coefficients of thermal expansions that vary
significantly.
2 Although the examiner’s rejection of appealed claim 48 is
made under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness. See, e.g., In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1385, 63
USPQ2d 1462, 1466-67 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007